1/23/10 - 1/24/10

[ellegna]

Good Morning :seeya:

Casey Anthony: Guilty plea ‘looks like a go’ in check-fraud case, WFTV says (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/casey-anthony-quilty-plea-looks-like-a-go-in-check-fraud-case-wftv-says.html)
(http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/casey-anthony-quilty-plea-looks-like-a-go-in-check-fraud-case-wftv-says.html/comment-page-2)

[Kathlb]

Good Morning :seeya:

Casey Anthony: Guilty plea ‘looks like a go’ in check-fraud case, WFTV says (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/casey-anthony-quilty-plea-looks-like-a-go-in-check-fraud-case-wftv-says.html)
(http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/casey-anthony-quilty-plea-looks-like-a-go-in-check-fraud-case-wftv-says.html/comment-page-2)

Good morning ellegna!

Not long to wait now to see Casey plea to the judge. I think that this is the first time she will have plead and admitted the truth that she did it. That will be a red letter day. I also want to hear if Judge Strickland will adjudicate the plea or not. I would really like her to go into the murder trial as a convicted felon. MOO

[SandyO]

Good morning ellegna!

Not long to wait now to see Casey plea to the judge. I think that this is the first time she will have plead and admitted the truth that she did it. That will be a red letter day. I also want to hear if Judge Strickland will adjudicate the plea or not. I would really like her to go into the murder trial as a convicted felon. MOO

I'll betcha anything Judge Strickland's ruling in regard to adjudication will be delayed and taken under advisement. I don't think he'll make a decision right there on the spot, so, more waiting............. BUT I, like you, am anxious to see Casey making an admission in court.

[Steely Dan]

Casey will plead guilty to one or more charges on Monday and will be sentenced immediately. What ever the outcome, sentence will be time served. Strickland has pretty much said that in open court.

I am certain that there has been multiple conversations between the State, the Defense, and the Judge over the last several weeks. I believe that the State has not wavered in insisting that the only thing they will accept is Guilty to a Felony. They can do no worse under Strickland.

Now comes the honorable Judge Strickland. I think he has been waiting for this opportunity to stick it to the whole insane clown posse - and he will. He has the law on his side, and he doesn't need to be concerned with his decision coming up on appeal later in the murder case.

Here's hoping I am correct (but of course, I could be way wrong!)

[ellegna]

Good morning ellegna!

Not long to wait now to see Casey plea to the judge. I think that this is the first time she will have plead and admitted the truth that she did it. That will be a red letter day. I also want to hear if Judge Strickland will adjudicate the plea or not. I would really like her to go into the murder trial as a convicted felon. MOO

Morning Kath

I can hardly wait for Monday too. :laugh:
I truly believe the Judge will adjudicate. I will be so disgusted if he doesn't

[GossipGirl]

If it's her first offense, she'll be entitled to leniency and PTI. She's yet to be convicted on the murder, so, technically she is innocent.
I doubt they'll get a felony conviction on it, or they'll have problems on appeal with regards to railroading.
As much as we all want to see her go down, she's got the law on her side at all times.
The law's on our side too.
We'll see.

[Ladygator]

If it's her first offense, she'll be entitled to leniency and PTI. She's yet to be convicted on the murder, so, technically she is innocent.
I doubt they'll get a felony conviction on it, or they'll have problems on appeal with regards to railroading.
As much as we all want to see her go down, she's got the law on her side at all times.
The law's on our side too.
We'll see.

You doubt they'll get a felony conviction on the check charges? Why, if you don't mind me asking?

How can anyone claim 'railroading'? she is on tape and signed her own name. It's pretty clear cut.

[Sun]

Good morning everyone. I do so hope that there is a resolution to the criminal check/fraud charges this coming Monday. I fear that the defense may try to argue for a continuance, saying that they have outstanding motions that still have not been addressed, and that those must be addressed by the court before a trial can begin. I sure hope that this doesn't happen.

[Sun]

Casey has stolen many, many times from family and friends in the past. Why she doesn't have a criminal record is anyone's guess (mine is CINDY). I'm guessing that statements about these previous thefts of money won't ever be heard in the criminal check/fraud case.

[Ladygator]

I'm posting this article because it has to do with someone else, besides the Anthony's, allegedly using Chloroform in a crime. To kill a dog. Where do people get this stuff?:angry:

Dog sitter kills pet with horrific surgery

http://www.wtsp.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=123245&provider=top

[BlueCrush]

Good Morning Everyone,

Will we actually here Casey say the words I Plead Guilty, or will Beaz tell the judge?

[Sun]

Good Morning Everyone,

Will we actually here Casey say the words I Plead Guilty, or will Beaz tell the judge?

BlueCrush, she'll probably try to submitt a "written change of plea" that Baez will present to the court. The last thing that Casey probably wants to do is have to verbally admit to stealing. And, the last thing that the defense wants is for Casey to speak and say anything extra that could jeopardize her in the murder case. I would imagine that Judge Strickland would still want a verbal admission though.

[BettyC]

Good Morning Everyone,

Will we actually here Casey say the words I Plead Guilty, or will Beaz tell the judge?

I doubt the judge would accept Baez's word for it. He's made it clear in the past that he wants to hear directly from Casey.

[Sun]

I have a feeling that Cindy is going to be very upset when Casey finally has an "official record" for stealing money. Cindy has probably worked very hard in the past to keep this very thing from happening. And, now it is happening.

[Holden]

Casey will plead guilty to one or more charges on Monday and will be sentenced immediately. What ever the outcome, sentence will be time served. Strickland has pretty much said that in open court.

I am certain that there has been multiple conversations between the State, the Defense, and the Judge over the last several weeks. I believe that the State has not wavered in insisting that the only thing they will accept is Guilty to a Felony. They can do no worse under Strickland.

Now comes the honorable Judge Strickland. I think he has been waiting for this opportunity to stick it to the whole insane clown posse - and he will. He has the law on his side, and he doesn't need to be concerned with his decision coming up on appeal later in the murder case.

Here's hoping I am correct (but of course, I could be way wrong!)

Steely, I have the same sense about the judge. I think it will be time served, also. Here is what I wonder - will casey have to get up and actually have to recount her crimes? Or will she just say 'guilty', period? And, after she is sentenced, will she be moved somewhere else? They don't keep convicted felons in jail, do they? Isn't that what prison is for? Will she go to prison or stay in jail because Baez will want here to remain there? Can't wait for MOnday......

[Sun]

I'm ready for Monday afternoon to get here too! I wonder if the sentencing guidelines are any different depending on whether Casey changes her plea to Guilty, or to No Contest?

[Marrigan]

You would think that Baez would be sick of this case by now. At some point he has to realize that there is a point of diminishing return for him. He has a clearly guilty client with a wacked-out family who keep doing and saying things that make her look even more guilty, and his Dream Team hasn't been able to produce much that it is in her favor.

All of this recent flurry of activity to go after Kronk is absurd. There's one, and only one, question that should be asked of Baez: "Explain the link between Zaneida Fernandez-Gonzalez and Roy Kronk." Nothing else is worth listening to from him. If he wants a jury to believe Casey's Zanny-the-nanny story, then he has to offer a plausible scenario to explain how Caylee went from being abducted by Zanny to being killed by Roy Kronk.

IMO, it's more smoke 'n mirrors by Baez. A total distraction that doesn't make sense to anyone...except maybe Cindy and George, who will cling to the most absurd scenario in order to avoid being tagged as the clueless parents of a child-murdering daughter.

[Marrigan]

I'm ready for Monday afternoon to get here too! I wonder if the sentencing guidelines are any different depending on whether Casey changes her plea to Guilty, or to No Contest?

I also wonder how long Amy has to wait for restitution before she can file in Small Claims Court? Ha! Wouldn't you love to see this on Judge Judy??

[Lynx]

You would think that Baez would be sick of this case by now. At some point he has to realize that there is a point of diminishing return for him. He has a clearly guilty client with a wacked-out family who keep doing and saying things that make her look even more guilty, and his Dream Team hasn't been able to produce much that it is in her favor.

All of this recent flurry of activity to go after Kronk is absurd. There's one, and only one, question that should be asked of Baez: "Explain the link between Zaneida Fernandez-Gonzalez and Roy Kronk." Nothing else is worth listening to from him. If he wants a jury to believe Casey's Zanny-the-nanny story, then he has to offer a plausible scenario to explain how Caylee went from being abducted by Zanny to being killed by Roy Kronk.

IMO, it's more smoke 'n mirrors by Baez. A total distraction that doesn't make sense to anyone...except maybe Cindy and George, who will cling to the most absurd scenario in order to avoid being tagged as the clueless parents of a child-murdering daughter.




BBM

Very important question IMHO!

[*PuffDragon*]

I was just getting a little chuckle about how lawyers can say whatever they want about evidence with such authority that you might actually believe them if you didn't know better. One of the channels just had an interview with Drew Peterson's lawyer who argued that the prosecution should not be allowed to consider the new testimony because it's hearsay. Very hearsay. The worst kind of evidence there is, totally unreliable........

And yet here's Casey's team wanting a letter.... a completely unsubstantiated letter from an ex wife of someone who isn't even a defendant...... brought in as evidence of the poor guy's proclivities, even though it refers to things that happened years ago (if they ever happened at all) and had nothing to do with a child. Here's the team on the other side of the coin trying to pretend that such a letter is valid and acceptable as testimony so they can raise credibility issues with his testimony.

Apparently the validity of hearsay evidence is measured by the creative imagination of what a lawyer is trying to accomplish. :confused:

[Sun]

I also wonder how long Amy has to wait for restitution before she can file in Small Claims Court? Ha! Wouldn't you love to see this on Judge Judy??

It's been said that the bank reimbursed Amy. HeHeHe, Judy Judy would be a hoot!

[Sun]

I was just getting a little chuckle about how lawyers can say whatever they want about evidence with such authority that you might actually believe them if you didn't know better. One of the channels just had an interview with Drew Peterson's lawyer who argued that the prosecution should not be allowed to consider the new testimony because it's hearsay. Very hearsay. The worst kind of evidence there is, totally unreliable........

And yet here's Casey's team wanting a letter.... a completely unsubstantiated letter from an ex wife of someone who isn't even a defendant...... brought in as evidence of the poor guy's proclivities, even though it refers to things that happened years ago (if they ever happened at all) and had nothing to do with a child. Here's the team on the other side of the coin trying to pretend that such a letter is valid and acceptable as testimony so they can raise credibility issues with his testimony.

Apparently the validity of hearsay evidence is measured by the creative imagination of what a lawyer is trying to accomplish. :confused:

ITA. It's like they want the Judge to just believe what they say is true, very much like Casey has been doing all these years.

[farrahrani]

Casey has stolen many, many times from family and friends in the past. Why she doesn't have a criminal record is anyone's guess (mine is CINDY). I'm guessing that statements about these previous thefts of money won't ever be heard in the criminal check/fraud case.


Actually she does have some kind of record. What the offense was, nobody knows, it was when she was a juvenile. I'd love to know what the terms of that deal was, to get it sealed. If there were conditions such as no similar crimes being committed during a certain length of time or whatever. If it was a financial crime, such as shoplifting or attempted fraud. And how her getting caught came about. I wonder if that time Cindy really made an effort to get Casey 'scared straight' and turned her in herself, or if Casey was simply inept and got caught. If it was a financial crime, you would think that one time would be enough to teach her a lesson :(

I can't help wondering if it IS a similar crime, if it can be unsealed and brought into court to show a history.

[cuddlyrunner]

Did we ever find out for definite if she did have a juvenile record or did that come from a forum? I can't remember.

[ttcRider]

Morning all, quick question.. if she pleads guilty and is charged does she get moved into prison with general population or does she get to stay in her dorm until the murder trial? :confused:

[CatToy]

http://www.fox5vegas.com/video/22317899/index.html

Absinthe makes a legal comback (remember this was one of the drinks at the anything but clothes party)

I still can't wait to see if the photos of Amy from that party where she was wrapped in duct tape and plastic saran wrap or bubble wrap are part of this case. The photo that I saw of her was yanked early on and I'm still curious if it will be used against casey in her case. I think that those photos will show CA had the affinity to use Duct Tape, not Kronk.

[puzzler]

Morning all, quick question.. if she pleads guilty and is charged does she get moved into prison with general population or does she get to stay in her dorm until the murder trial? :confused:

According to everything I have heard, she will remain where she is until after the murder trial. The prison is too far away from the courthouse I think is what they said.

[puzzler]

I don't remember ever hearing that Casey had a juvenile record...what did you hear or read about this???

I have never heard this either, except for people speculating.

[Scampi]

Morning all, quick question.. if she pleads guilty and is charged does she get moved into prison with general population or does she get to stay in her dorm until the murder trial? :confused:

No one really knows for sure, but the consensus is that she will remain at the jail, as a courtesy to her attorneys so they can visit and consult with her more easily.

imo

[adair]

Good Morning Everyone!!

It sounds like we are all thinking the same questions.

I hope someone can stop by to answer them soon, I wonder if kc is cleaning out her cell, didn't someone say that she had some sort of collage of pix of Caylee? (i don't recall where i read that....so i cannot say its true).

I hope that KC has to stand up and face the court and say something other then I plead guilty. I don't know if J Strickland can/will ask her any questions?

What time is this hearing set for? I have to leave for work around 11:30 so i hope i get to see atleast part of the hearing.

jmo

[BettyC]

Good Morning Everyone!!

It sounds like we are all thinking the same questions.

I hope someone can stop by to answer them soon, I wonder if kc is cleaning out her cell, didn't someone say that she had some sort of collage of pix of Caylee? (i don't recall where i read that....so i cannot say its true).

I hope that KC has to stand up and face the court and say something other then I plead guilty. I don't know if J Strickland can/will ask her any questions?

What time is this hearing set for? I have to leave for work around 11:30 so i hope i get to see atleast part of the hearing.

jmo

Sorry Adair. IIRC the hearing doesn't start until 1:30 pm.

If she gets time served, there would be no reason to move her IMO.

[farrahrani]

I don't remember ever hearing that Casey had a juvenile record...what did you hear or read about this???

Now that I look back, I realize the only place I've heard it is here, and on other discussion forums. It was said early on that she had a juvenile record, but now I can't be sure if I've actually seen it in the news. It's been said that she had a record as a teen, but it was sealed because she was a juvenile. Anyone know where there is more info on this, other than discussion forums?

[court~critic1®]

No one really knows for sure, but the consensus is that she will remain at the jail, as a courtesy to her attorneys so they can visit and consult with her more easily.

imo



IMO>>> I concur. Am willing to bet the man will give her time served. So therefor no reason to send her anywhere. Or for her attorneys to go visit her any place else.

safe one!

[denjet]

Morning guys!

Yippee!!
Bill Shaeffer has a new blog up:

Legal Analyst Bill Sheaffer on Casey Anthony Case
MONDAY, MONDAY…

http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthonyblog/index.html
:thumbsup:

[Sun]

Good Morning Everyone!!

It sounds like we are all thinking the same questions.

I hope someone can stop by to answer them soon, I wonder if kc is cleaning out her cell, didn't someone say that she had some sort of collage of pix of Caylee? (i don't recall where i read that....so i cannot say its true).

I hope that KC has to stand up and face the court and say something other then I plead guilty. I don't know if J Strickland can/will ask her any questions?

What time is this hearing set for? I have to leave for work around 11:30 so i hope i get to see atleast part of the hearing.

jmo
http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthonyblog/index.html

Bill Sheaffer answers some questions in regards to the check/fraud case.

uh, what denjet said. I'm a bit slow this morning. :biggrin:

[Sun]

I will really be disappointed if Casey gets time served and stays in her dorm...the total of her charges can add up to 65 years in prison so time served would be a drop in the bucket...I would love for her to get at least 10 years and be transferred to a real prison...

I'm 95% certain that she'll be staying put in the Orange County Jail until she goes to trial. And, after watching many prison documentaries, I like the fact that she's kept isolated from other inmates 24/7 and only allowed one hour of "rec time" per day in which she may shower, make phone calls, ask to watch TV, etc. Those documentaries tend to all agree on one point. Isolation is much harder mentally on an inmate, than being in general population. And, I think that this mental challenge will be hard for Casey to live with 24/7. She can make up all the lies and fantasies that she wants, and has no one to "play with.":rolleyes:

[farrahrani]

I will really be disappointed if Casey gets time served and stays in her dorm...the total of her charges can add up to 65 years in prison so time served would be a drop in the bucket...I would love for her to get at least 10 years and be transferred to a real prison...

However, if Casey truly has a clean record, to give her the full maximum sentencing and transferring her can be seen as punitive. Most crimes of this nature, with no priors, rarely see jail time. They plea it out and agree to stay on the straight and narrow.
I have no problem with her getting time served, since at the very least she will get LWOP. She will be going into the murder trial as a convicted felon, and that is much more important than transferring her a little faster than she would be if getting credit for time served.

[Shotzie]

I will really be disappointed if Casey gets time served and stays in her dorm...the total of her charges can add up to 65 years in prison so time served would be a drop in the bucket...I would love for her to get at least 10 years and be transferred to a real prison...

I agree totally, I would love for her to get at least 25 years..the reason being..we all think it is a slam dunk she will be found "GUILTY" for murder, but what "IF" they have one nutcase JUROR, like on spectors trial that causes a MIS TRIAL...ugh..:cursing:

This sentence of 25years would be a safe bet for the SA..just to cover everything. Pleassse Judge Strickland..NOT Time SERVED...

[Sun]

I agree totally, I would love for her to get at least 25 years..the reason being..we all think it is a slam dunk she will be found "GUILTY" for murder, but what "IF" they have one nutcase JUROR, like on spectors trial that causes a MIS TRIAL...ugh..:cursing:

This sentence of 25years would be a safe bet for the SA..just to cover everything. Pleassse Judge Strickland..NOT Time SERVED...

A mistrial will result in Casey staying in jail, and the prosecution will just try her again She is not going anywhere due to a mistrial, should one happen.

[SandyO]

I'm 95% certain that she'll be staying put in the Orange County Jail until she goes to trial. And, after watching many prison documentaries, I like the fact that she's kept isolated from other inmates 24/7 and only allowed one hour of "rec time" per day in which she may shower, make phone calls, ask to watch TV, etc. Those documentaries tend to all agree on one point. Isolation is much harder mentally on an inmate, than being in general population. And, I think that this mental challenge will be hard for Casey to live with 24/7. She can make up all the lies and fantasies that she wants, and has no one to "play with.":rolleyes:

I wish we could get this issue of isolation vs. protective custody figured out for once and for all. I also thought Casey was being held in isolation until another poster with some experience in the jails wrote that protective custody and isolation are not the same thing; that Casey could still have interaction with other inmates while being held in protective custody. I believe the conversation began over wondering if Casey hears "what's going on" regarding her case from any source other than Baez, et al. or her little radio, and the answer was that sure she does ---- from other inmates. Whether this is correct or not, I'm sure I don't know. I've never stepped foot inside a jail and know nothing of how they work.

[puzzler]

I agree totally, I would love for her to get at least 25 years..the reason being..we all think it is a slam dunk she will be found "GUILTY" for murder, but what "IF" they have one nutcase JUROR, like on spectors trial that causes a MIS TRIAL...ugh..:cursing:

This sentence of 25years would be a safe bet for the SA..just to cover everything. Pleassse Judge Strickland..NOT Time SERVED...

I feel you Shotzie!

I do think it will be time served. Daggnabbit.

Never fear, even if she gets a hung jury in the murder trial, she will be retried and convicted. JMO
:smile:

[puzzler]

I wish we could get this issue of isolation vs. protective custody figured out for once and for all. I also thought Casey was being held in isolation until another poster with some experience in the jails wrote that protective custody and isolation are not the same thing; that Casey could still have interaction with other inmates while being held in protective custody. I believe the conversation began over wondering if Casey hears "what's going on" regarding her case from any source other than Baez, et al. or her little radio, and the answer was that sure she does ---- from other inmates. Whether this is correct or not, I'm sure I don't know. I've never stepped foot inside a jail and know nothing of how they work.

You know, I have no idea about this either. Us law abiding citizens just don't know the ins and outs of jail.:laugh:

One thing to think about though, is that we haven't had a bunch of cons coming on the air waves saying they were in the jail with her. (lately anyway) I wonder if this indicates that she is having little contact with any of the other prisoners or not.:confused:

[trich]

ITA. It's like they want the Judge to just believe what they say is true, very much like Casey has been doing all these years.

Yes it does sound as if the lawyers for the defense have fallen under her spell.
But again I think that because they have no real evidence that someone else killed Caylee they have no other way but to do as she
does and make up stories and hopefully one will be believed.
I think if the judge is to rule that this letter can be offered into evidence then the prosecution should be able to go to her and swear
she is telling the truth and also have some proof that he did this.
Of course if she is really dying I am sorry but don't go to the here after with evil in your heart.
If not then anyone can write letters and say anything they want about anyone they want.
Maybe we ought to start a write in campaign about Casey and her truth as everyone really knows it.LOL
Again though as everyone points out Kronk is not on trial and there should be a limit as to what others can say about him without any proof.I know the defense is going to try and put him on trial.
I think the prosecution could take the wind out of their sails if
in opening statement it is stated that Kronk has had toruble with his temper with his x's but he has never been charged or convicted of a crime.
The defense would like you to believe he has comitted this crime when in truth he has never ever had any association with the Anthonys.blah blah blah.
I also want to add that I believe if she admits her guilt on the fraud charges then it is certain she will not testify in the murder trial.
Actually if she is not brain dead she already knows that.

[denjet]

I'm 95% certain that she'll be staying put in the Orange County Jail until she goes to trial. And, after watching many prison documentaries, I like the fact that she's kept isolated from other inmates 24/7 and only allowed one hour of "rec time" per day in which she may shower, make phone calls, ask to watch TV, etc. Those documentaries tend to all agree on one point. Isolation is much harder mentally on an inmate, than being in general population. And, I think that this mental challenge will be hard for Casey to live with 24/7. She can make up all the lies and fantasies that she wants, and has no one to "play with.":rolleyes:

I remember this being said way back that she would remain in protective custody .. one of the reason being logistics ... she has to be readily available to attend all the motions hearing related to the murder case ...

[SandyO]

You know, I have no idea about this either. Us law abiding citizens just don't know the ins and outs of jail.:laugh:

One thing to think about though, is that we haven't had a bunch of cons coming on the air waves saying they were in the jail with her. (lately anyway) I wonder if this indicates that she is having little contact with any of the other prisoners or not.:confused:

That's true.........and certainly if she'd made some aquaintances in the pokey they'd be hot to get to the media and spill!

[BettyC]

Bill Sheaffer answers the question everyone has been wondering about:


William J. Sheaffer said, on January 22, 2010 at 7:37 pm

No. No, she will stay in the Orange County Correctional Facility until her trial on the murder charge.
And, thank you!
WJS

http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthonyblog/index.html

[Sun]

I wish we could get this issue of isolation vs. protective custody figured out for once and for all. I also thought Casey was being held in isolation until another poster with some experience in the jails wrote that protective custody and isolation are not the same thing; that Casey could still have interaction with other inmates while being held in protective custody. I believe the conversation began over wondering if Casey hears "what's going on" regarding her case from any source other than Baez, et al. or her little radio, and the answer was that sure she does ---- from other inmates. Whether this is correct or not, I'm sure I don't know. I've never stepped foot inside a jail and know nothing of how they work.

My understanding of protective custody is that Casey is physically kept from having any direct contact with any other inmates (other than maybe a trustee that might deliver her daily meals to her...not sure about this). I do wonder at times if the other inmates in general population are allowed to physically loiter directly outside Casey's cell? Or if Casey is able to see and chat with them directly through her cell wall/door? Lots of unknowns here. I know that frequently yelling occurs in the jail, and no doubt Casey is both able to hear yelling, as well as to do some yelling herself. ....we've heard not much in the way of any "leaks" about Casey's time in the jail, and I'm guessing that Casey just isn't chatting with other inmates. JMO

[denjet]

Yes it does sound as if the lawyers for the defense have fallen under her spell.
But again I think that because they have no real evidence that someone else killed Caylee they have no other way but to do as she
does and make up stories and hopefully one will be believed.
I think if the judge is to rule that this letter can be offered into evidence then the prosecution should be able to go to her and swear
she is telling the truth and also have some proof that he did this.
Of course if she is really dying I am sorry but don't go to the here after with evil in your heart.
If not then anyone can write letters and say anything they want about anyone they want.
Maybe we ought to start a write in campaign about Casey and her truth as everyone really knows it.LOL
Again though as everyone points out Kronk is not on trial and there should be a limit as to what others can say about him without any proof.I know the defense is going to try and put him on trial.
I think the prosecution could take the wind out of their sails if
in opening statement it is stated that Kronk has had toruble with his temper with his x's but he has never been charged or convicted of a crime.
The defense would like you to believe he has comitted this crime when in truth he has never ever had any association with the Anthonys.blah blah blah.
I also want to add that I believe if she admits her guilt on the fraud charges then it is certain she will not testify in the murder trial.
Actually if she is not brain dead she already knows that.

And then there's that sticky business of the judge ordering the defense to turn over their witness list and evidence by Feb 1st !! Wouldn't that be even more reason for no allowing Kerly's testimony ... I mean if she does NOT appear on their witness list? And they don't really have any evidence, real evidence that Kronk did it or had anything to do with it ??
I realize the defense wants her statement because she's on her "death bed" or "death recliner" but couldn't the state ask for records or something to back that up ??

[denjet]

New post at Hinky Meter ...

Kronk, Damn it, Kronk!

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/
:thumbup:

[BettyC]

New post at Hinky Meter ...

Kronk, Damn it, Kronk!

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/
:thumbup:

Thanks so much denjet. Valhall is an absolute hoot !!

[BlueCrush]

BlueCrush, she'll probably try to submitt a "written change of plea" that Baez will present to the court. The last thing that Casey probably wants to do is have to verbally admit to stealing. And, the last thing that the defense wants is for Casey to speak and say anything extra that could jeopardize her in the murder case. I would imagine that Judge Strickland would still want a verbal admission though.

Thanks Sun,

what a bummer, I want to see her admit to being guilty, to take blame for once in her life

[BettyC]

BettyC,
Thanks for that link. :thumbup:

Hi Richell - Denjet originally posted the link.

[Pam1569]

Hello everyone!

I really don't think that she is going to plead on the fraud case. I do believe however that Baez will stand up in court and say that his client has changed her mind and wants a trial by a jury. This way the defense can get the delay they wanted legally and the court will have to set a new trial date for the fraud charges. jmo

I say this because during the March 25th, 2008 hearing there was a side bar (not on record) for a continuation (the defense 3rd) for the fraud. They have tried since then to dispute this, but to no avail couldn't get another delay. Then they tried finally to get some of the charges dropped as double jeopardy and that didn't work. And now the defense states that she will plead out this case.

Anyone that here that has seen what the defense will do to get their way knows that this might be a ruse to get a legal delay. This is why I do believe that this is what the defense is doing. I also believe that if the defense does this move that it will be much worse for their client when it is time for the juries ruling. If I am not mistaken (hopefully one of our lawyers here can let me know) this plea ruse can be brought up by the prosecution to the jury during the fraud trial.

All of this is just my opinion. I realize I may be wrong, but I just have that sneaky feeling that this will happen. Sorry for this being so long.

[Sun]

I know Casey is in protective custody which I believe means she is kept there to prevent harm coming to her from other inmates...and Isolation is when the inmate may cause harm to others...but mentally they are one in the same...protective custody and or isolation... is isolation...

That's exactly the point that I was trying to make. You did it in far fewer words, thanks! There are always exceptions, but Casey's history when she was out of jail, indicates I believe that she liked to be around others.

[oswald]

I wish we could get this issue of isolation vs. protective custody figured out for once and for all. I also thought Casey was being held in isolation until another poster with some experience in the jails wrote that protective custody and isolation are not the same thing; that Casey could still have interaction with other inmates while being held in protective custody. I believe the conversation began over wondering if Casey hears "what's going on" regarding her case from any source other than Baez, et al. or her little radio, and the answer was that sure she does ---- from other inmates. Whether this is correct or not, I'm sure I don't know. I've never stepped foot inside a jail and know nothing of how they work.

Protective custody is where high profile inmates are - like Bernie Madoff was before he was sentenced, then he was put in gen pop (and see where that got him!) - Charles Manson is in protective custody but he can still have contact with other inmates in protective custody - it's like they let out the protective custody inmates in the rec room/shower at once

[Steely Dan]

Hello everyone!

I really don't think that she is going to plead on the fraud case. I do believe however that Baez will stand up in court and say that his client has changed her mind and wants a trial by a jury. This way the defense can get the delay they wanted legally and the court will have to set a new trial date for the fraud charges. jmo

I say this because during the March 25th, 2008 hearing there was a side bar (not on record) for a continuation (the defense 3rd) for the fraud. They have tried since then to dispute this, but to no avail couldn't get another delay. Then they tried finally to get some of the charges dropped as double jeopardy and that didn't work. And now the defense states that she will plead out this case.

Anyone that here that has seen what the defense will do to get their way knows that this might be a ruse to get a legal delay. This is why I do believe that this is what the defense is doing. I also believe that if the defense does this move that it will be much worse for their client when it is time for the juries ruling. If I am not mistaken (hopefully one of our lawyers here can let me know) this plea ruse can be brought up by the prosecution to the jury during the fraud trial.

All of this is just my opinion. I realize I may be wrong, but I just have that sneaky feeling that this will happen. Sorry for this being so long.

I respectfully disagree. During a recent hearing, Strickland said come Hell or high water, the Fraud trail would begin on January 25th. The defense is out of time on this one.

[denjet]

Hello everyone!

I really don't think that she is going to plead on the fraud case. I do believe however that Baez will stand up in court and say that his client has changed her mind and wants a trial by a jury. This way the defense can get the delay they wanted legally and the court will have to set a new trial date for the fraud charges. jmo

I say this because during the March 25th, 2008 hearing there was a side bar (not on record) for a continuation (the defense 3rd) for the fraud. They have tried since then to dispute this, but to no avail couldn't get another delay. Then they tried finally to get some of the charges dropped as double jeopardy and that didn't work. And now the defense states that she will plead out this case.

Anyone that here that has seen what the defense will do to get their way knows that this might be a ruse to get a legal delay. This is why I do believe that this is what the defense is doing. I also believe that if the defense does this move that it will be much worse for their client when it is time for the juries ruling. If I am not mistaken (hopefully one of our lawyers here can let me know) this plea ruse can be brought up by the prosecution to the jury during the fraud trial.

All of this is just my opinion. I realize I may be wrong, but I just have that sneaky feeling that this will happen. Sorry for this being so long.

Hi Pam :seeya:

I hope if that happens (which I'm hoping it won't) that Strickland reads them the riot act and cautions them about wasting the court's time and the ramifications of a jury trial AND that he reiterate's that this trial WILL happen BEFORE the murder trial !!

I'm still holding out hope though that KC will actually have to say she's guilty of the charges and be sentenced for them once and for all !! :angry:

[adair]

Sorry Adair. IIRC the hearing doesn't start until 1:30 pm.

If she gets time served, there would be no reason to move her IMO.


Thanks for the info......i don't suppose my boss would believe me if i said that i to be in court......oh well, i hope i get to catch it once I get home from work. By then you guys will have all kinds of juicy information to read about. imo:tongueside:

[Pam1569]

I respectfully disagree. During a recent hearing, Strickland said come Hell or high water, the Fraud trail would begin on January 25th. The defense is out of time on this one.

Hi Steely, I respect your disagree on this issue. I do remember Strickland also saying that either she plea or the trial would begin on the 25th of January 2010. But legally, even like Mr. Sheaffer suggested, she could change her mind at the last second. This is why I made this opinion of mine. It would be something I could see this defense doing. And legally they could do this and get a delay, even though the judge stated what he stated. jmo

[denjet]

I respectfully disagree. During a recent hearing, Strickland said come Hell or high water, the Fraud trail would begin on January 25th. The defense is out of time on this one.

That's definitely what happened but like Pam, I don't trust the defense to not try to something, legal or not, to get more time ... which of course I'm praying the judge will say, nope, we start NOW with a bench trial ... I'm just not sure the judge can do that without KC agreeing ...

Guess it will all come out in the wash on Monday!

[Sun]

Anyone have handy the link to the PDF of Judge Strickland's ruling that gave the defense until Feb 1? I read that a few days ago, but have lost the link and can't find it anywhere. arghhhhh

[Pam1569]

Hi Pam :seeya:

I hope if that happens (which I'm hoping it won't) that Strickland reads them the riot act and cautions them about wasting the court's time and the ramifications of a jury trial AND that he reiterate's that this trial WILL happen BEFORE the murder trial !!

I'm still holding out hope though that KC will actually have to say she's guilty of the charges and be sentenced for them once and for all !! :angry:

Hi denjet, I do hope for this also, but I have a nagging feeling about this. I have hope that she will get to prison real soon also and meet her new home with horror. jmo

[LadyHam]

Good Morning :seeya:

Casey Anthony: Guilty plea ‘looks like a go’ in check-fraud case, WFTV says (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/casey-anthony-quilty-plea-looks-like-a-go-in-check-fraud-case-wftv-says.html)
(http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/casey-anthony-quilty-plea-looks-like-a-go-in-check-fraud-case-wftv-says.html/comment-page-2)

Thanks so much for the link. :seeya:

I especially thought this part of the article was interesting (Bolding by me):

The stations explored a new defense motion that says Roy Kronk, the meter reader who found toddler Caylee’s remains, should be a suspect in the case. The reason: Kronk’s ex-wife Jill Kerley says he used duct tape her, and duct tape was found on Caylee’s remains.

The stations played footage of Kerley saying she suspects Kronk of killing Caylee or having something to do with the child’s death.

WESH replayed old footage of Kronk denying doing anything wrong in finding Caylee’s remains.

In another WESH report, prominent Orlando attorney Mark NeJame questioned the defense’s strategy of going after Kronk and added that approach could ultimately hurt Anthony.

I truly hope that this backfires on the defense. How shameful that they are going after an innocent person when IMO they know that Casey is responsible. They are making a mockery of our criminal justice system and turning into such a joke. I am so disgusted w/this whole case.:thumbdown:

[LadyHam]

I'll betcha anything Judge Strickland's ruling in regard to adjudication will be delayed and taken under advisement. I don't think he'll make a decision right there on the spot, so, more waiting............. BUT I, like you, am anxious to see Casey making an admission in court.

Bolding by me....

I absolutely agree w/you there. He seems to do that a lot when making important decisions. There is still a lot of time before the murder trial, so I think he will delay that decision to a later time as well.

[LadyHam]

You doubt they'll get a felony conviction on the check charges? Why, if you don't mind me asking?

How can anyone claim 'railroading'? she is on tape and signed her own name. It's pretty clear cut.

Also, Casey forged Amy's check's multiple times as well. It wasn't just **one** check, which would be bad enough, but it was several checks. She also went to multiple stores and did this over the course of several days. IMO she is not remorseful. She would do it again if given the opportunity. She is just sorry that she got caught.

[Sun]

Thanks so much for the link. :seeya:

I especially thought this part of the article was interesting (Bolding by me):

The stations explored a new defense motion that says Roy Kronk, the meter reader who found toddler Caylee’s remains, should be a suspect in the case. The reason: Kronk’s ex-wife Jill Kerley says he used duct tape her, and duct tape was found on Caylee’s remains.

The stations played footage of Kerley saying she suspects Kronk of killing Caylee or having something to do with the child’s death.

WESH replayed old footage of Kronk denying doing anything wrong in finding Caylee’s remains.

In another WESH report, prominent Orlando attorney Mark NeJame questioned the defense’s strategy of going after Kronk and added that approach could ultimately hurt Anthony.

I truly hope that this backfires on the defense. How shameful that they are going after an innocent person when IMO they know that Casey is responsible. They are making a mockery of our criminal justice system and turning into such a joke. I am so disgusted w/this whole case.:thumbdown:

NeJame said blaming the man who found Caylee's remains could damage the defense team's credibility with the jury.

"If you're going to be taking shots, be careful they don't ricochet and hit you back," he said.

[LadyHam]

Casey has stolen many, many times from family and friends in the past. Why she doesn't have a criminal record is anyone's guess (mine is CINDY). I'm guessing that statements about these previous thefts of money won't ever be heard in the criminal check/fraud case.

Bolding by me....

I don't think so either. I hope I am not the only one that finds it ironic that the defense wants Roy Kronk's prior "bad acts" brought into the murder trial (even though he is not a suspect), and yet Casey's prior bad acts in terms of stealing money from friends and family can't and won't be brought into the fraud trial, and she is THE SUSPECT in that case.:thumbdown:

[LadyHam]

ITA. It's like they want the Judge to just believe what they say is true, very much like Casey has been doing all these years.

I don't think it's convincing the judge that they defense is worried about. They have to know what the judge really thinks about the case and Casey's guilt. I think the defense is only trying to influence the court of public opinion by bringing up all the issues w/Roy Kronck and his ex-wives, etc. Those in the public watching this may potentially be on the jury and all the defense is trying to do is reach one or two jurors to get a mistrial.

[SandyO]

Also, Casey forged Amy's check's multiple times as well. It wasn't just **one** check, which would be bad enough, but it was several checks. She also went to multiple stores and did this over the course of several days. IMO she is not remorseful. She would do it again if given the opportunity. She is just sorry that she got caught.

Casey HAD to have known, even while she was in the act of writing the checks, that she was going to be caught. Her name/signature were right there on the checks, FGS. She just didn't care. She must have had some line of bull to tell Amy figured-out, and thought she could get away with it --- fool Amy somehow. What in the world could she have been thinking?

[puzzler]

Bolding by me....

I don't think so either. I hope I am not the only one that finds it ironic that the defense wants Roy Kronk's prior "bad acts" brought into the murder trial (even though he is not a suspect), and yet Casey's prior bad acts in terms of stealing money from friends and family can't and won't be brought into the fraud trial, and she is THE SUSPECT in that case.:thumbdown:

Very excellent point!

[kakax]

Bill Sheaffer address the question of whether or not Casey would go to prison before the murder trial...

No. No, she will stay in the Orange County Correctional Facility until her trial on the murder charge.
And, thank you!
WJS

[BlueCrush]

does anyone know if Beaz or anyone from his team has come to visit Casey to prepare her for Monday?

[Sun]

does anyone know if Beaz or anyone from his team has come to visit Casey to prepare her for Monday?

I've no clue about this coming hearing. However for the Dec 11, 2009 court date, Baez last visited her on Dec 1 for less than an hour, and another attorney of his law firm visited her on Dec 3 for less than 2 hrs. Strangely, no visits of anyone from then until the day after the court hearing on Dec 11th.

[puzzler]

does anyone know if Beaz or anyone from his team has come to visit Casey to prepare her for Monday?

No idea, BlueCrush. I tried to find a current visitor log and couldn't find it. Do you know how we are obtaining these logs? Is the media going to the jail and requesting them and then publishing them?

[kakax]

No idea, BlueCrush. I tried to find a current visitor log and couldn't find it. Do you know how we are obtaining these logs? Is the media going to the jail and requesting them and then publishing them?

I think some people that live Orlando are going to get them and posting them. Not completely sure, though.

[Spots™]

I've no clue about this coming hearing. However for the Dec 11, 2009 court date, Baez last visited her on Dec 1 for less than an hour, and another attorney of his law firm visited her on Dec 3 for less than 2 hrs. Strangely, no visits of anyone from then until the day after the court hearing on Dec 11th.

Casey has become insignificant in the formulation of her own defense, overshadowed by the "Scream Team," their theories, antics, statements, accusations, and media appearances.

I find that a tad bit ironic.

[puzzler]

I think some people that live Orlando are going to get them and posting them. Not completely sure, though.

Probably some of both. I know I couldn't find a way to access the logs through the OC website.

I think they will show that they have been meeting with her. They would have to have Casey's ok for whatever they decide to do. This is probably the first time the defense team is telling her that she can't claim the invisinanny did it. Oh, wait, if she is invisible, I guess she could say the invisible nanny was with her in target and the bank with an invisible gun to her head, saying buy yourself some cute clothes, bras, sunglasses, etc. ...and don't forget the beer!:glare:

[oswald]

Not going to happen. Kronk is not on trial.

Well the defense will argue to the fact of Kronk's prior bad acts - was he convicted of any of them? If he wasn't then it is hearsay and won't be allowed in court - now if the ex wife had made a police report, well then the arguement can be made - but it's only the EX wifes word - and EX wives can be a bitter bunch - plus your right, Kronk isn't on trial

As for Casey's prior bad acts, she wasn't arrested or convicted of any - it's only word of mouth from friends - so, none of that will come into trial

The state will argue, and most likely win, that the theiven' done by Casey with Amy's checks will most likely come into trial because that was during the '31 days' that Caylee was kidnapped by invisi-nanny - and the defense will want to argue that Casey stole this money out of desperation to find Caylee

(and then the jury will listen to what Casey purchased with this stolen money - bras, beer, sunglasses, food, etc. - and they will chuckle to themselves that she must have been very desperate to find Caylee with the stash she bought) To me the items purchased, since none were for Caylee - that it goes to the idea that Caylee was no longer living, IF Caylee was living at that point at least one item would have been for Caylee - IMHO that is - if I was a juror I'd be thinking that

[denjet]

Someone asked about KC's visits and the updated logs have been posted somewhere ... which I can't find at the moment ..

Casey Anthony Visit Logs

Express over on Caylee Daily flowcharted Casey's visits up to Dec 09

Casey Anthony Jail Visits with Baez Show Big Decline (http://www.cayleedaily.com/2009/12/casey-anthony-jail-visits-with-baez-show-big-decline/comment-page-7/)

ETA: Found it! posted at CayleeDaily
Casey Anthony Visit Logs (http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwgGnRBLv8rOMGU3N2EzZWUtYjNlMi00NTBmL WE1ZmItMmFmNmE3Y2E1NDIy&hl=en)

[sunstar]

Good Morning :seeya:

Casey Anthony: Guilty plea ‘looks like a go’ in check-fraud case, WFTV says (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/casey-anthony-quilty-plea-looks-like-a-go-in-check-fraud-case-wftv-says.html)
(http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2010/01/casey-anthony-quilty-plea-looks-like-a-go-in-check-fraud-case-wftv-says.html/comment-page-2)

Hi! Now isn't the time for grudges on the behalf of RK's ex-wife, even *if* he used to put duct tape on her. All of the evidence points to Casey or someone inside the A's household and not RK as being the killer. I'd also like to know if anyone else can back up the ex-wife's claims. :mad: MOO

[Spots™]

Someone asked about KC's visits and the updated logs have been posted somewhere ... which I can't find at the moment ..

Casey Anthony Visit Logs

Express over on Caylee Daily flowcharted Casey's visits up to Dec 09

Casey Anthony Jail Visits with Baez Show Big Decline (http://www.cayleedaily.com/2009/12/casey-anthony-jail-visits-with-baez-show-big-decline/comment-page-7/)

ETA: Found it! posted at CayleeDaily
Casey Anthony Visit Logs (http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwgGnRBLv8rOMGU3N2EzZWUtYjNlMi00NTBmL WE1ZmItMmFmNmE3Y2E1NDIy&hl=en)

In above link, scroll down. Most recent log has a link to the right of the ~lovely~ photo of LKB and Phil Spector. Good thru 12/19/09.

[BlueCrush]

Someone asked about KC's visits and the updated logs have been posted somewhere ... which I can't find at the moment ..

Casey Anthony Visit Logs

Express over on Caylee Daily flowcharted Casey's visits up to Dec 09

Casey Anthony Jail Visits with Baez Show Big Decline (http://www.cayleedaily.com/2009/12/casey-anthony-jail-visits-with-baez-show-big-decline/comment-page-7/)

ETA: Found it! posted at CayleeDaily
Casey Anthony Visit Logs (http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BwgGnRBLv8rOMGU3N2EzZWUtYjNlMi00NTBmL WE1ZmItMmFmNmE3Y2E1NDIy&hl=en)

Thanks Denjet

[denjet]

From HumpleOpinion ... more about the "Kronk Klan" (Roy's ex's) and their criminal background:

Casey Anthony update 22 January 2010 (http://humbleopinionforum.net/)

Thanks to poster "Blessedknox" ...

Part 1 (http://humbleopinionforum.net/kronk-klan/)

Part 2 (http://humbleopinionforum.net/kronk-klan/kronk-klan-2/)

I don't think either one of them want to take the stand and be cross examined ... if I were them I certainly wouldn't ... :scared:

ETA: Also the article contains Crystal Sparks original statements praising Roy and the emails between Crystal and Dominic and Cindy

It's a great review!

[sunstar]

Hi Steely, I respect your disagree on this issue. I do remember Strickland also saying that either she plea or the trial would begin on the 25th of January 2010. But legally, even like Mr. Sheaffer suggested, she could change her mind at the last second. This is why I made this opinion of mine. It would be something I could see this defense doing. And legally they could do this and get a delay, even though the judge stated what he stated. jmo

I have a (probably stupid) question. Will there be an agreement in place regarding Casey's sentence on the fraud charges before she admits guilt? I'm just praying this "time served" nonsense isn't true. :mad: MOO

[denjet]

Thanks Denjet
YW :patriot:

[Sun]

I have a (probably stupid) question. Will there be an agreement in place regarding Casey's sentence on the fraud charges before she admits guilt? I'm just praying this "time served" nonsense isn't true. :mad: MOO

Nobody has disclosed that a plea "deal" has been signed. However, maybe Casey is waiting, or could do this up until the court hearing. Nobody from the State or the defense has given out these details. Or Casey could show up at the hearing and change her Not Guilty Plea to on of Guilt or No Contest. Or I suppose the defense could once again try to get it all delayed. :(

I trust that Judge Strickland will be fair and treat Casey like he would any other first time offender of a like crime. No special treatment one way or the other. No matter what the sentence length, Casey isn't getting out of jail. Casey is going to end up (hopefully) with several felonies on her record. What she did to Amy was awful, just awful. :cursing:

[sunstar]

Nobody has disclosed that a plea "deal" has been signed. However, maybe Casey is waiting, or could do this up until the court hearing. Nobody from the State or the defense has given out these details. Or Casey could show up at the hearing and change her Not Guilty Plea to on of Guilt or No Contest. Or I suppose the defense could once again try to get it all delayed. :(

I trust that Judge Strickland will be fair and treat Casey like he would any other first time offender of a like crime. No special treatment one way or the other. No matter what the sentence length, Casey isn't getting out of jail. Casey is going to end up (hopefully) with several felonies on her record. What she did to Amy was awful, just awful. :cursing:

So basically nothing is set in stone and we really won't know until the hearing. As much as I'd like to see her actually admit doing something wrong, I just don't like that "time served" sentence at all. And it isn't even like the only reason she's in jail is because of the fraud charges either. MOO

[BlueTurtle]

Hi Steely, I respect your disagree on this issue. I do remember Strickland also saying that either she plea or the trial would begin on the 25th of January 2010. But legally, even like Mr. Sheaffer suggested, she could change her mind at the last second. This is why I made this opinion of mine. It would be something I could see this defense doing. And legally they could do this and get a delay, even though the judge stated what he stated. jmo

The people called for jury duty might still have been called in anticipation of the trial and not released until the plea is entered in court. That way the jury selection could start almost immediately after the defense states Casey wishes her day in court with a jury.

[Lapis]

So basically nothing is set in stone and we really won't know until the hearing. As much as I'd like to see her actually admit doing something wrong, I just don't like that "time served" sentence at all. And it isn't even like the only reason she's in jail is because of the fraud charges either. MOO

She's not in jail for the murder charges either. She is in jail to ensure her attendance at all hearings and at the trial. Pre-trial detention is not for punishment.

The judge has indicated that she will be treated like any other defendant. In the eyes of the law she is a first time offender. Ordinarily, charges of this type, for a first time offender means jail time, not prison time. Jail time by definition is under one year. Thus since the sentence is likely to be under one year and she has already spent more time in jail than one year she gets credit for every day served. Therefore, she will have already served her jail time.

The court will not take into account the other charges pending against her as in the eyes of the law she will stand before the court as innocent of those other charges.

The sentence is designed to be in keeping with the crime she is being sentenced for, it is not designed to be vindictive.

JMO

[Chardonnay]

The people called for jury duty might still have been called in anticipation of the trial and not released until the plea is entered in court. That way the jury selection could start almost immediately after the defense states Casey wishes her day in court with a jury.

This is so true, Blue. It happened to me here in Calif. We were chosen and were waiting to be seated in the courtroom, then the baliff or someone came out and said to go home. The defendant pleaded guilty, no trial will be needed. I hope Judge S is a few steps ahead of their games.

[oswald]

This is so true, Blue. It happened to me here in Calif. We were chosen and were waiting to be seated in the courtroom, then the baliff or someone came out and said to go home. The defendant pleaded guilty, no trial will be needed. I hope Judge S is a few steps ahead of their games.

It really depends on the state - but for the fraud trial to start on Monday, the jury would have been picked last week - notices might have been sent out but it would have been for jury duty for a variety of trials to start - so maybe 100 people got notices, and there are 5 trials starting this week, one in which COULD have been Casey's - and now with the latest developments, now there are 4 trials to seat

As for the murder trial - if a date is set next week - I think Tues there is a pre trial hearing where a date will be set? Then jury notices will most likely go out a month in advance because it could take a month to get a jury picked - I'm sure the questionnaire will be long and extensive

Most likely, the change of venue won't be granted, they will get jurors from another part of Florida and bring them in and sequester them - no big deal, Casey can get a fair trial in Orlando

[puzzler]

She's not in jail for the murder charges either. She is in jail to ensure her attendance at all hearings and at the trial. Pre-trial detention is not for punishment.

The judge has indicated that she will be treated like any other defendant. In the eyes of the law she is a first time offender. Ordinarily, charges of this type, for a first time offender means jail time, not prison time. Jail time by definition is under one year. Thus since the sentence is likely to be under one year and she has already spent more time in jail than one year she gets credit for every day served. Therefore, she will have already served her jail time.

The court will not take into account the other charges pending against her as in the eyes of the law she will stand before the court as innocent of those other charges.

The sentence is designed to be in keeping with the crime she is being sentenced for, it is not designed to be vindictive.

JMO

Thank you, Lapis, for the excellent explanation.:smile:

[sunstar]

Thank you, Lapis, for the excellent explanation.:smile:

So as not to repost again, I will thank Lapis here also. I'm understanding it a lot more now. Maybe we shouldn't have heard of the possible sentence when she was originally charged and then I wouldn't be so disappointed now.

[puzzler]

So as not to repost again, I will thank Lapis here also. I'm understanding it a lot more now. Maybe we shouldn't have heard of the possible sentence when she was originally charged and then I wouldn't be so disappointed now.

I know how you feel Sunstar. But remember, the judge is fully aware that most likely Casey is going to be convicted of murdering Caylee and will be given a huge sentence of either death or life without parole. IMO

I think we can take comfort in the fact that Caylee's death will surely not go unpunished.

At least this is what I am praying for.

[sunstar]

I know how you feel Sunstar. But remember, the judge is fully aware that most likely Casey is going to be convicted of murdering Caylee and will be given a huge sentence of either death or life without parole. IMO

I think we can take comfort in the fact that Caylee's death will surely not go unpunished.

At least this is what I am praying for.

After reading some more, I'm still hopefull that the fraud can be used against her in the murder trial, meaning that the jury can see what she was doing in the 31 days while Caylee was missing to show she wasn't looking for Caylee. And the items she "bought" weren't for Caylee either. :sad: MOO

[puzzler]

After reading some more, I'm still hopefull that the fraud can be used against her in the murder trial, meaning that the jury can see what she was doing in the 31 days while Caylee was missing to show she wasn't looking for Caylee. And the items she "bought" weren't for Caylee either. :sad: MOO

I am hopeful, too. I think the videos of her shopping are relevant, not necessarily because she was committing fraud, but they show her acting as if nothing is amiss in her life. And as you say, not a single item for Caylee. Very telling, and I think the videos should come in.
JMO

[seeing_eye]

Thanks so much denjet. Valhall is an absolute hoot !!

I especially loved what twiglet said in the comments at 04:01.

[sunstar]

I am hopeful, too. I think the videos of her shopping are relevant, not necessarily because she was committing fraud, but they show her acting as if nothing is amiss in her life. And as you say, not a single item for Caylee. Very telling, and I think the videos should come in.
JMO

Exactly. They show her going on with her life as if nothing at all was wrong. MOO

[sunstar]

I believe that was confirmed. In any case, I hope all Casey's charges will be brought up and used during the murder trial. They show exactly what miss CA was doing after her daughter was killed.

Thanks, I wasn't sure. MOO

[Scampi]

Nobody has disclosed that a plea "deal" has been signed. However, maybe Casey is waiting, or could do this up until the court hearing. Nobody from the State or the defense has given out these details. Or Casey could show up at the hearing and change her Not Guilty Plea to on of Guilt or No Contest. Or I suppose the defense could once again try to get it all delayed. :(

I trust that Judge Strickland will be fair and treat Casey like he would any other first time offender of a like crime. No special treatment one way or the other. No matter what the sentence length, Casey isn't getting out of jail. Casey is going to end up (hopefully) with several felonies on her record. What she did to Amy was awful, just awful. :cursing:

I too read Lapis's opinion of how the Judge will handle this and appreciate her reminding us that she will be treated like any other defendant. Also that the check fraud case will not be influenced by the fact that she will go on trial for murder.

I hope that theory holds when it comes to adjudicating her guilt on each charge. In other words, the adjudication SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE MURDER TRIAL.

[sunstar]

I too read Lapis's opinion of how the Judge will handle this and appreciate her reminding us that she will be treated like any other defendant. Also that the check fraud case will not be influenced by the fact that she will go on trial for murder.

I hope that theory holds when it comes to adjudicating her guilt on each charge. In other words, the adjudication SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE MURDER TRIAL.

A very good point, Scampi!

[SCeditor]

Sorry, I seem to have originally posted this on an outdated thread--

Thought you all might be interested in this news item:

SC Mom Convicted of Killing 2 Sons Seeks New Trial

SPARTANBURG, S.C. (AP) -->

Multiple media outlets report Susan Smith has filed a handwritten petition in Union County for post-conviction relief.

Solicitor Kevin Brackett said Saturday that Smith is claiming her attorney failed to adequately represent her and that the trial was unfair.

The appeal comes a month after her petition in federal court was dismissed.

Smith is serving a life sentence.

She captured the national spotlight in 1994 when she told investigators her two young sons had been taken in a carjacking, and she tearfully pleaded on TV for their return. She later confessed to strapping them into their car seats and letting the car roll into a lake. . .


http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?...=83197&catid=2

[KP1935]

I too read Lapis's opinion of how the Judge will handle this and appreciate her reminding us that she will be treated like any other defendant. Also that the check fraud case will not be influenced by the fact that she will go on trial for murder.

I hope that theory holds when it comes to adjudicating her guilt on each charge. In other words, the adjudication SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE MURDER TRIAL.

I'm sure most would agree, I'd take time served so long as she is adjudicated GUILTY NOW before the Capital Murder Trial.

[puzzler]

I'm sure most would agree, I'd take time served so long as she is adjudicated GUILTY NOW before the Capital Murder Trial.

I am going to tell myself that Judge Strickland IS going to adjudicate her guilty!

Maybe if we all concentrate on it until she goes before him, he will feel us and do the right thing! LOL

[oswald]

I've been looking - what time Monday will Casey adjucate? (LOL - sorry but I'm not holding my breath for any adjucatin')

Or is it Tuesday?

And what day and time for motion pre-trial for the murder trial where we get to set a date?

I'm looking around and all I'm reading is it 'could' be Monday

[Steely Dan]

As far as I can tell, Monday Casey will enter a plea. Since she has already plead not guilty, the remaining two choices are Guilty or No Contest.

As far as I can tell, there is no "plea deal" for Monday.

This would mean if Judge Strickland accepts her plea, then he can sentence.

I believe he has already indicated he would sentence for time served, so that takes care of that part.

He knows that a guilty or no contest plea will result in a felony conviction. I think he will take this opportunity to make a felony conviction immediately. It would be standard for a case such as this, he has the law on his side, and he needn't worry about this decision being questioned or appealed.

It's funny, but most people in this situation would be sweating the sentence, and not too worried about the felony conviction. But once again, Casey just has to go against the norm!

[Scampi]

I'm sure most would agree, I'd take time served so long as she is adjudicated GUILTY NOW before the Capital Murder Trial.


Me too and that is going to be THE argument on Monday, imo. All the prosecutors are going to put forth a strong argument for swift adjudication and lyon will whine poor casey can't get a fair trial if she goes in as a convicted felon.

I say TOUGH. I hope Judge Stan goes by the existing law and does not find an exception in this case.

[Chardonnay]

I am going to tell myself that Judge Strickland IS going to adjudicate her guilty!

Maybe if we all concentrate on it until she goes before him, he will feel us and do the right thing! LOL

:blushing: Ok, I will come out and admit that I am the village idiot here. I've googled adjudication/adjudicate and for life of me I don't understand what it means. I was confused when Bill and Kathi were talking about it, and I still didn't get it... Could someone kindly please explain it to me in layman's term? And especially in regards to Monday's hearing. :confused: tia....:blushing:

[sunstar]

I'm sure most would agree, I'd take time served so long as she is adjudicated GUILTY NOW before the Capital Murder Trial.

Absolutely! :wink:

[lulusmoon]

I too read Lapis's opinion of how the Judge will handle this and appreciate her reminding us that she will be treated like any other defendant. Also that the check fraud case will not be influenced by the fact that she will go on trial for murder.

I hope that theory holds when it comes to adjudicating her guilt on each charge. In other words, the adjudication SHOULD NOT BE DELAYED BECAUSE OF THE MURDER TRIAL.

You said it, Scampi, and I agree with your last paragraph.

[sunstar]

:blushing: Ok, I will come out and admit that I am the village idiot here. I've googled adjudication/adjudicate and for life of me I don't understand what it means. I was confused when Bill and Kathi were talking about it, and I still didn't get it... Could someone kindly please explain it to me in layman's term? And especially in regards to Monday's hearing. :confused: tia....

Well, I'm not the smartest one here either :smile: but my understanding is the defense wants the judge to delay adjudication, or in other words, not enter a judgment against Casey until after the murder trial. The purpose would be so she wouldn't be a convicted felon during the murder trial. So basically, the way I understand it, she'd enter a plea on Monday but not have a "record" until a later date, if the defense gets what they want. MOO

[seeing_eye]

How would we know that dearie? :tongue:

The same way we knew of her visits on the last visitors log that was made public.

[Spots™]

:blushing: Ok, I will come out and admit that I am the village idiot here. I've googled adjudication/adjudicate and for life of me I don't understand what it means. I was confused when Bill and Kathi were talking about it, and I still didn't get it... Could someone kindly please explain it to me in layman's term? And especially in regards to Monday's hearing. :confused: tia....:blushing:

adjudicate (v) - to make a formal decision
adjudication (n) - the formal decision

Examples:

Immediate adjudication: Casey pleads guilty, Judge Stan says, "OK, you are sentenced to 2 years in jail."

Delayed adjudication: Casey pleads guilty, Judge Stan says, "OK, I'll let you know the sentence after the murder trial."

[charmin 66]

I seriously doubt that Casey's lawyers are going to publicly announce their visits with her before a hearing.
imoo

Nobody announced Casey's visits, they are public record.

[puzzler]

I seriously doubt that Casey's lawyers are going to publicly announce their visits with her before a hearing.
imoo

I think the visitors log is public record, so if someone went to the courthouse today(well, they are closed today, but you kwim), they could get a current visitors log and we would indeed know if the defense lawyers have been to see Casey. JMO

[puzzler]

Yes, I understand that. :thumbup:

DOES the public know before a lawyer visits his high profile client?
No:laugh:

Guess I missed the before part.

[oswald]

You confused me :) is it Monday or not? And if not what day? What time? THIS I can't miss - so my workouts and some work and dishes have to happen before - I'm just trying to organize my day :)

Trial time won't be difficult - TV to TruTV for Banfield or online for steaming - and I work throughout

As far as I can tell, Monday Casey will enter a plea. Since she has already plead not guilty, the remaining two choices are Guilty or No Contest.

As far as I can tell, there is no "plea deal" for Monday.

This would mean if Judge Strickland accepts her plea, then he can sentence.

I believe he has already indicated he would sentence for time served, so that takes care of that part.

He knows that a guilty or no contest plea will result in a felony conviction. I think he will take this opportunity to make a felony conviction immediately. It would be standard for a case such as this, he has the law on his side, and he needn't worry about this decision being questioned or appealed.

It's funny, but most people in this situation would be sweating the sentence, and not too worried about the felony conviction. But once again, Casey just has to go against the norm!

[Chardonnay]

Sunstar and Spots..!! TY! TY!! TY!!! This is sooooooo much clearer to me now.. TY again...:biggrin:

[sunstar]

Sunstar and Spots..!! TY! TY!! TY!!! This is sooooooo much clearer to me now.. TY again...:biggrin:

You're most welcome!!! :wub:

[seeing_eye]

I seriously doubt that Casey's lawyers are going to publicly announce their visits with her before a hearing.
imoo

Casey's lawyers don't have to publicly announce their visits. The jail keeps a log which is available to the public by request. We've seen several of the logs already.

[Silk]

How would we know that dearie? :tongue:

We are provided with a log, "dearie.":tonguewag:

[adair]

We are provided with a log, "dearie.":tonguewag:

I was thinking of a tactful way to say that..........thank you...lol

[seeing_eye]

You confused me :) is it Monday or not? And if not what day? What time? THIS I can't miss - so my workouts and some work and dishes have to happen before - I'm just trying to organize my day :)

Trial time won't be difficult - TV to TruTV for Banfield or online for steaming - and I work throughout

I believe it is Monday at 1:30 PM. I presume that is Eastern time.

[adair]

We so need a dd or something to talk about...........

[seeing_eye]

We so need a dd or something to talk about...........

I agree. we need anything - something to talk about. :sad:

[Spots™]

We so need a dd or something to talk about...........

Patience. Only 38 hours till the hearing/trial/plea/whatever in the courtroom.

[adair]

I agree. we need anything - something to talk about. :sad:


Does anyone who is organized know who's depo's are missing from the dd's.....we know mark Hawkings (?) Mally Booo......'the future daughter in law'......that is unless she spilles some beans...

Who else? Brother Rick? I know we have the interview with Shirley P....but I do not think that is the same as a depo......

AND WADDAAA ~BOUT GA family?


jmmo

[adair]

Anyone one want to discuss ??? Jill St John (psychic) and they pretty much found Caylee's grave, talked about the water level ... how it could not have been searched. Another psychic in the car while they are near Caylee's remains (IMO) feels sick. This is documented.

Also another curious thing is Brians Dreams and how he writes out Conway......so everyone starts thinking that Caylee is somewhere near Conway.

All I am gonna say is, it interesting, very interesting.

[puzzler]

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2010m1d23-Casey-Anthony-case-Roy-Kronks-exwife-may-testify-at-Mondays-hearing

Casey Anthony case: Roy Kronk’s ex-wife may testify at Monday's hearing
January 23, 8:13 PM

This is BS. I hope that if they really do let her testify that the prosecution gets to bring up her record. :sneaky:

[adair]

Anyone one want to discuss ??? Jill St John (psychic) and they pretty much found Caylee's grave, talked about the water level ... how it could not have been searched. Another psychic in the car while they are near Caylee's remains (IMO) feels sick. This is documented.

Also another curious thing is Brians Dreams and how he writes out Conway......so everyone starts thinking that Caylee is somewhere near Conway.

All I am gonna say is, it interesting, very interesting.


I NEED TO CORRECT IT IS GAIL ST JOHN. Sorry I am looking for links now.

[puzzler]

This stuff with Kronk's ex is making me mad.

From everything I have read, she is no shining citizen herself. And for her to say that when she heard he found Caylee's body that she "thought he killed her" is preposterous. It should not be allowed into court!

The first thing I thought of when I heard Casey didn't report her child missing for 31 days and then lied to detectives is that she did it, so can I go testify?

I guess that is a bad example since I don't know Casey, but I bet they could find a slew that know her that thought the same, so let them all come down and tell the court what they "thought".

Pffft

[puzzler]

I NEED TO CORRECT IT IS GAIL ST JOHN. Sorry I am looking for links now.

LOL ....I didn't even notice you had written Jill St. John.:laugh:

[Lynx]

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2010m1d23-Casey-Anthony-case-Roy-Kronks-exwife-may-testify-at-Mondays-hearing

Casey Anthony case: Roy Kronk’s ex-wife may testify at Monday's hearing
January 23, 8:13 PM

I am so confused... This is unbelievable :w00t:

Has anyone ever heard of anything like this happening before?

[puzzler]

I am so confused... This is unbelievable :w00t:

Has anyone ever heard of anything like this happening before?

Not off the top of my head, no.

I did see a trial where a guy was testifying for the prosecution and the defense on cross tried to accuse him of being the murderer.

[Lynx]

Not off the top of my head, no.

I did see a trial where a guy was testifying for the prosecution and the defense on cross tried to accuse him of being the murderer.

I wonder if the state was prepared for this?:confused:

Going from fraud to Kronk in a blink of an eye! LOL

[puzzler]

I wonder if the state was prepared for this?:confused:

Going from fraud to Kronk in a blink of an eye! LOL

They had a motion to compel her testimony, so I guess they are somewhat prepared.

I just wonder if this information about her maybe testifying is accurate.

[Lynx]

They had a motion to compel her testimony, so I guess they are somewhat prepared.

I just wonder if this information about her maybe testifying is accurate.

who knows?:rolleyes: I'll see if I can find something.

[puzzler]

Wesh reported this about Kronk's ex, too.

HMM.. and this was yesterday. I missed it.

So, maybe it is true. Don't know what to think about this, except if they let her say she thinks Kronk did it, I think I will scream.

http://www.wesh.com/news/22315979/detail.html

[Lynx]

Wesh reported this about Kronk's ex, too.

HMM.. and this was yesterday. I missed it.

So, maybe it is true. Don't know what to think about this, except if they let her say she thinks Kronk did it, I think I will scream.

http://www.wesh.com/news/22315979/detail.html

This is getting crazy! We should have known something was up when that crazy letter came out of the prison system. Remember the one with (Virginia and MarraWanna)?

[puzzler]

Well, you can bet I will be glued to the tv and here on Monday!!!

Anybody wants me to do anything else, it better be life threatening.

:w00t:

[adair]

This is BS. I hope that if they really do let her testify that the prosecution gets to bring up her record. :sneaky:

I am wondering if that woman is looking for $$$ in some way shape or form?

She (IMO) belongs in the same encampent that JW should be in.


I am very sorry that she is dying from a horrible disease.


I often think of something my dad told me ..... IF a man hits you once, it is HIS fault, if he hits you again ITS YOUR Fault.......


Now after having my niece die due to 3 bullets from an ex husband who exhibited no violence, I have to bury that thought above.

~~~~
MY family went thru this

We as (normal...lol people) feel a need to understand what the hell happened, what went wrong, why did we not see this, why did we not do something.........believe me... our family beat our.... family up, trying to try to understand why Heather died. But the man who she moved in with, (the one who killed her) was the most stable of the male friends in her life...father to 2 of her children.. Heather left this earth leaving 4 children. And we as a family cannot, nor will never-ever understand this tragedy and its far reaching aspects.

We have been warned that the defense will pro-trey Heather as an easy person, they may call her a **** in court, i do not know what will happen.

I can tell you that Heather did a lot in the community, she had a child born with downs and started a support group.

OUR family has been warned that Heather will be referred to as a street walker, the dufense will go as low as they can.

I hate to talk about personal stuff here, there is not one person saying that Heather was not a saint (they have her on the news about starting support programs for parents who have children with disabilities and no support) ..... she was no kc anthony. She loved her children and that may have been the end to her.....

Her Love will live on.

My sister has Heather's McCaw. He just started to live with my sister, as its difficult to house that large of a bird.

So, my sister gives him a piece of fruit, and he hangs his head low, and says "Heather".......my sister tells him we all miss her and love her very much.



Sorry for going off topic.

[puzzler]

This is getting crazy! We should have known something was up when that crazy letter came out of the prison system. Remember the one with (Virginia and MarraWanna)?

I have followed a few cases in my day, and I must tell you that this one takes the cake.

[puzzler]

puzzler,
WESH reported it too? :ohmy: gulp :bored:
Get out the ear plugs because if she's allowed to testify, I will scream too.
I must remember to buy Nerf balls tomorrow. :smile:

Well, that's two reporting it. However, wftv's site just says they are "wanting to" have her testify, and I had thought that was referring to their motion about her. I never interpreted it to mean they meant NOW.

Who knows. Wesh and the Examiner both say that they want her on the stand on Monday because she has terminal cancer and .....

Maybe good Judge Strickland will deny the motion, but I have a bad feeling about this. If he denies it, then if she passes away, the defense will appeal saying they weren't allowed to use her testimony and now she's dead.

Egad!

[Lynx]

Well, that's two reporting it. However, wftv's site just says they are "wanting to" have her testify, and I had thought that was referring to their motion about her. I never interpreted it to mean they meant NOW.

Who knows. Wesh and the Examiner both say that they want her on the stand on Monday because she has terminal cancer and .....

Maybe good Judge Strickland will deny the motion, but I have a bad feeling about this. If he denies it, then if she passes away, the defense will appeal saying they weren't allowed to use her testimony and now she's dead.

Egad!

Well this change of strategy has left me quite dizzy..sent my blood pressure skyrocketing I must say.

I guess I'll just go to bed confused as all get out and wait to see what Monday afternoon brings.

[seeing_eye]

How nice of you to stay out of it since the post wasn't to you. :glare: :beer:

Any post on this board is to any other poster on the board. That's the way message boards operate. We are provided with the ability to send personal messages, if you want to talk privately with a specific poster and not to anyone else on the board. That's how PMs operate.

[puzzler]

I am wondering if that woman is looking for $$$ in some way shape or form?

She (IMO) belongs in the same encampent that JW should be in.


I am very sorry that she is dying from a horrible disease.


I often think of something my dad told me ..... IF a man hits you once, it is HIS fault, if he hits you again ITS YOUR Fault.......


Now after having my niece die due to 3 bullets from an ex husband who exhibited no violence, I have to bury that thought above.

~~~~
MY family went thru this

We as (normal...lol people) feel a need to understand what the hell happened, what went wrong, why did we not see this, why did we not do something.........believe me... our family beat our.... family up, trying to try to understand why Heather died. But the man who she moved in with, (the one who killed her) was the most stable of the male friends in her life...father to 2 of her children.. Heather left this earth leaving 4 children. And we as a family cannot, nor will never-ever understand this tragedy and its far reaching aspects.

We have been warned that the defense will pro-trey Heather as an easy person, they may call her a **** in court, i do not know what will happen.

I can tell you that Heather did a lot in the community, she had a child born with downs and started a support group.

OUR family has been warned that Heather will be referred to as a street walker, the dufense will go as low as they can.

I hate to talk about personal stuff here, there is not one person saying that Heather was not a saint (they have her on the news about starting support programs for parents who have children with disabilities and no support) ..... she was no kc anthony. She loved her children and that may have been the end to her.....

Her Love will live on.

My sister has Heather's McCaw. He just started to live with my sister, as its difficult to house that large of a bird.

So, my sister gives him a piece of fruit, and he hangs his head low, and says "Heather".......my sister tells him we all miss her and love her very much.



Sorry for going off topic.

Oh, Adair, I cannot even imagine what this has been like for you and your family. I am so sorry.

Just keep your head up in court. They can try to disparage your sister, but the prosecution will counter it with the truth!

I don't know what this woman's motivation is, but besides a grudge against Kronk, I would bet money is in the picture. Or maybe just getting her face on national tv a few times. I just do not believe that she really thinks he did this. I am sure he is not a perfect guy, but she sure isn't either. If I am right about her, she should be ashamed of herself.

:mad:

[seeing_eye]

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2010m1d23-Casey-Anthony-case-Roy-Kronks-exwife-may-testify-at-Mondays-hearing

Casey Anthony case: Roy Kronk’s ex-wife may testify at Monday's hearing
January 23, 8:13 PM

The Examiner is quoting WESH. I believe WESH used phrasing that tends to mislead, perhaps inadvertently. I read the WESH article and I think they are referring to the defense wanting to get the judge to allow the written testimony of Kerley to be used at trial. I do not think they mean to say that Kerley will be at the hearing in person to testify.

[puzzler]

The Examiner is quoting WESH. I believe WESH used phrasing that tends to mislead, perhaps inadvertently. I read the WESH article and I think they are referring to the defense wanting to get the judge to allow the written testimony of Kerley to be used at trial. I do not think they mean to say that Kerley will be at the hearing in person to testify.

Well, that makes more sense to me. I thought I had heard something about them wanting written testimony. They could do it by Skype. I think if this is going to be done, allowing written testimony is a bad idea. I think she should have to "appear" at least over video so that both sides can question her and she can be seen, body language and all. JMO

ETA And with written testimony how is the prosecution supposed to question her?

[seeing_eye]

Well, that makes more sense to me. I thought I had heard something about them wanting written testimony. They could do it by Skype. I think if this is going to be done, allowing written testimony is a bad idea. I think she should have to "appear" at least over video so that both sides can question her and she can be seen, body language and all. JMO

ETA And with written testimony how is the prosecution supposed to question her?

I agree. With written testimony the prosecution will not be able to cross examine. I hope the judge denies this.

[puzzler]

I agree. With written testimony the prosecution will not be able to cross examine. I hope the judge denies this.

Sounds to me like more dirty tricks by the defense. They want this bogus carp to come in, but DO NOT want it to come under the scrutiny by the prosecution.

I call BS and hope the judge wouldn't fall for it.

ETA Doesn't this inability for the prosecution to question her make it hearsay?

[adair]

I want to thank everyone for their great positive thoughts. Its coming up on a year and the defense wants to postone/delay. We were told by the pros office that "this type" of trial the defense will do everything to postpone as long as possible so that Heather will be forgotten. Talk about feeling like someone kicked you in the Gut.

That is the strategy.....to delay......hope the passion for justice be forgotten, be worn out? jmo

huggss to all my insessions friends

[seeing_eye]

Sounds to me like more dirty tricks by the defense. They want this bogus carp to come in, but DO NOT want it to come under the scrutiny by the prosecution.

I call BS and hope the judge wouldn't fall for it.

ETA Doesn't this inability for the prosecution to question her make it hearsay?

Since I'm not an attorney I may very well be wrong, but I don't believe her written testimony would be considered hearsay. If she writes only about incidents or facts she herself has seen or experienced, it is not hearsay. If she writes about what someone else told her, that would be hearsay. MOO

[seeing_eye]

I want to thank everyone for their great positive thoughts. Its coming up on a year and the defense wants to postone/delay. We were told by the pros office that "this type" of trial the defense will do everything to postpone as long as possible so that Heather will be forgotten. Talk about feeling like someone kicked you in the Gut.

That is the strategy.....to delay......hope the passion for justice be forgotten, be worn out? jmo

huggss to all my insessions friends

((((Hugs))))) to you, Adair. We'll be here for you.

[adair]

Well, that makes more sense to me. I thought I had heard something about them wanting written testimony. They could do it by Skype. I think if this is going to be done, allowing written testimony is a bad idea. I think she should have to "appear" at least over video so that both sides can question her and she can be seen, body language and all. JMO

ETA And with written testimony how is the prosecution supposed to question her?

How can this x of RK not be deposed by the State? Bottom line.

[adair]

Sounds to me like more dirty tricks by the defense. They want this bogus carp to come in, but DO NOT want it to come under the scrutiny by the prosecution.

I call BS and hope the judge wouldn't fall for it.

ETA Doesn't this inability for the prosecution to question her make it hearsay?


Exactly the dufense says this great white shark attacked you in Lake Michigan.......and we should all believe her and send money. jmo

[puzzler]

[QUOTE=seeing_eye;13814710]Since I'm not an attorney I may very well be wrong, but I don't believe her written testimony would be considered hearsay. If she writes only about incidents or facts she herself has seen or experienced, it is not hearsay. If she writes about what someone else told her, that would be hearsay. MOO[/QUOTE

I definitely am no lawyer. :laugh:

I was just thinking that one of the things defining hearsay was not being able to cross examine the witness. But I think I misinterpreted that. I am sure it means that if a witness is saying something about "someone else" and that "someone else" can't be questioned...then it is hearsay.

duh

[puzzler]

Needless to say, the upcoming hearings should be something to witness.

We all may end up mad, but at least something is happening.

I am so ready for justice for Caylee to move along!

[seeing_eye]

Since I'm not an attorney I may very well be wrong, but I don't believe her written testimony would be considered hearsay. If she writes only about incidents or facts she herself has seen or experienced, it is not hearsay. If she writes about what someone else told her, that would be hearsay. MOO[/QUOTE

I definitely am no lawyer. :laugh:

I was just thinking that one of the things defining hearsay was not being able to cross examine the witness. But I think I misinterpreted that. I am sure it means that if a witness is saying something about "someone else" and that "someone else" can't be questioned...then it is hearsay.

duh


Neither one of us being attorneys, we may both be wrong. :w00t:

[adair]

[QUOTE=seeing_eye;13814710]Since I'm not an attorney I may very well be wrong, but I don't believe her written testimony would be considered hearsay. If she writes only about incidents or facts she herself has seen or experienced, it is not hearsay. If she writes about what someone else told her, that would be hearsay. MOO[/QUOTE

I definitely am no lawyer. :laugh:

I was just thinking that one of the things defining hearsay was not being able to cross examine the witness. But I think I misinterpreted that. I am sure it means that if a witness is saying something about "someone else" and that "someone else" can't be questioned...then it is hearsay.

duh


I am not a lawyer.............but logic says as long as that person is alive....she should be able to answer questions from BOTH the pros and defense.

And then what ever medicine she is on should also be known to jurors...........jmo moo

[need2no]

The article at WESH makes no sense based on what is stated in the defense motion:

Ms. Kerley currently resides out of state in Maryville, Tennessee.

Ms. Kerley suffers from a serious medical condition, Hodgkins Lymphoma, which requires extensive treatment in her hometown. Due to the serious illness she is unable to travel to court in order to attend any trial or hearing, and her attendance cannot be procured.

Wherefore the defendant, CMA, respectfully asks this court to grant her Motion to Take a Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony and enter an order for the deposition of Jill Kerkley.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313192/detail.html

[seeing_eye]

The article at WESH makes no sense based on what is stated in the defense motion:

Ms. Kerley currently resides out of state in Maryville, Tennessee.

Ms. Kerley suffers from a serious medical condition, Hodgkins Lymphoma, which requires extensive treatment in her hometown. Due to the serious illness she is unable to travel to court in order to attend any trial or hearing, and her attendance cannot be procured.

Wherefore the defendant, CMA, respectfully asks this court to grant her Motion to Take a Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony and enter an order for the deposition of Jill Kerkley.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313192/detail.html

I believe the author of the WESH article simply used a poor choice of words that are misleading. I don't think the author ever meant to say that Kerley would testify at the hearing on Monday.

[puzzler]

[QUOTE=puzzler;13814720]


I am not a lawyer.............but logic says as long as that person is alive....she should be able to answer questions from BOTH the pros and defense.

And then what ever medicine she is on should also be known to jurors...........jmo moo

And they should be able to question her on HER past, because from what's floating around out there, she is no angel. I believe she has had several run ins with the law. So, if they want to say Kronk's past should come in, then so should the person's who is disparaging him.

JMO

[need2no]

I believe the author of the WESH article simply used a poor choice of words that are misleading. I don't think the author ever meant to say that Kerley would testify at the hearing on Monday.

ITA, hopefully someone will make a correction by tomorrow.

[seeing_eye]

And they should be able to question her on HER past, because from what's floating around out there, she is no angel. I believe she has had several run ins with the law. So, if they want to say Kronk's past should come in, then so should the person's who is disparaging him.

JMO

And anyone with a criminal past as Kerley has is not considered very credible when testifying in a court of law. MOO

[puzzler]

And anyone with a criminal past as Kerley has is not considered very credible when testifying in a court of law. MOO

Exactly!

Shows once again, the desperation of the defense. To me, it just makes them look ridiculous and makes it more obvious that their client is guilty.

[adair]

Sounds to me like more dirty tricks by the defense. They want this bogus carp to come in, but DO NOT want it to come under the scrutiny by the prosecution.

I call BS and hope the judge wouldn't fall for it.

ETA Doesn't this inability for the prosecution to question her make it hearsay?

If it cannot be crossed examined by the SA...how can the juror take it to be the whole truth without one single question?
jmo

[adair]

The article at WESH makes no sense based on what is stated in the defense motion:

Ms. Kerley currently resides out of state in Maryville, Tennessee.

Ms. Kerley suffers from a serious medical condition, Hodgkins Lymphoma, which requires extensive treatment in her hometown. Due to the serious illness she is unable to travel to court in order to attend any trial or hearing, and her attendance cannot be procured.

Wherefore the defendant, CMA, respectfully asks this court to grant her Motion to Take a Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony and enter an order for the deposition of Jill Kerkley.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313192/detail.html

So why can't the sa travel there and take her deposition?

[adair]

[QUOTE=adair;13814730]

And they should be able to question her on HER past, because from what's floating around out there, she is no angel. I believe she has had several run ins with the law. So, if they want to say Kronk's past should come in, then so should the person's who is disparaging him.

JMO


IMO that is another dirty sock that should be thrown out

[puzzler]

If it cannot be crossed examined by the SA...how can the juror take it to be the whole truth without one single question?
jmo

Well, hopefully, the judge is not going to allow this written testimony. If he does, then it should include the prosecution questioning her.

If they were by some stretch of the imagine to just get some written statement by her in without being questioned, then the jury would surely take it for what it is. (which in my opinion is bs) Plus, surely the prosecution would be able to say something about it in court to expose it for what it is. (again..bs)

[Steely Dan]

[QUOTE=seeing_eye;13814710]Since I'm not an attorney I may very well be wrong, but I don't believe her written testimony would be considered hearsay. If she writes only about incidents or facts she herself has seen or experienced, it is not hearsay. If she writes about what someone else told her, that would be hearsay. MOO[/QUOTE

I definitely am no lawyer. :laugh:

I was just thinking that one of the things defining hearsay was not being able to cross examine the witness. But I think I misinterpreted that. I am sure it means that if a witness is saying something about "someone else" and that "someone else" can't be questioned...then it is hearsay.

duh

You are correct Puzzler. It would be her direct testimony. However, the State will either do their own deposition before trial, or be able to cross examine at trial. Either way, with her history, her credibility will be called into question. Any juror, if it gets that far, will have to decide what her motives are, and how credible she is as a witness.

It appears that the defense is hanging their hat on this Kronk as Murderer theory. If this is all they got, put a fork in KC....she is done!

[puzzler]

I think my responses are starting to be rambling and jumbled, so I think it is time for me to bid you all adieu.:laugh:

I pray for Judge Strickland to make firm and correct decisions.

I pray for the prosecution to keep on working with diligence on this case.

I pray the defense starts getting to the REAL work on this case. (you know like deposing witnesses (and I don't mean Kerley)....things that they should have done a year ago.

I pray that all my good friends here are all safe and well.

But mostly, I pray for justice for little Caylee, may she rest in peace.

Night all!:seeya:

[puzzler]

[QUOTE=puzzler;13814720]

You are correct Puzzler. It would be her direct testimony. However, the State will either do their own deposition before trial, or be able to cross examine at trial. Either way, with her history, her credibility will be called into question. Any juror, if it gets that far, will have to decide what her motives are, and how credible she is as a witness.

It appears that the defense is hanging their hat on this Kronk as Murderer theory. If this is all they got, put a fork in KC....she is done!

BBM...had to respond to this last one, because ....yes, you are so right!!!!!

[Steely Dan]

I think my responses are starting to be rambling and jumbled, so I think it is time for me to bid you all adieu.:laugh:

I pray for Judge Strickland to make firm and correct decisions.

I pray for the prosecution to keep on working with diligence on this case.

I pray the defense starts getting to the REAL work on this case. (you know like deposing witnesses (and I don't mean Kerley)....things that they should have done a year ago.

I pray that all my good friends here are all safe and well.

But mostly, I pray for justice for little Caylee, may she rest in peace.

Night all!:seeya:

And I pray that your sound reasoning remains intact!:thumbup:

[sunbunny]

So why can't the sa travel there and take her deposition?

they CAN! this whole thing just makes me :cursing:!!! i don't know where this ex-wife lives, but, in california, if they want to take a deposition of a party that lives over 75 miles away from where they want to depose the person (usually the attorney's office who noticed the depo), the deponents are not required to travel that distance. the lawyers i work with notice the depos in a town where the deponent lives.

on another note... if i were roy krunk, i'd be pulling a "zenaida fernandez gonzales" and suing these people for defaming me, insisting i was a "suspect" in this fiasco!! GAWD! hammer

[onlykaty]

they CAN! this whole thing just makes me :cursing:!!! i don't know where this ex-wife lives, but, in california, if they want to take a deposition of a party that lives over 75 miles away from where they want to depose the person (usually the attorney's office who noticed the depo), the deponents are not required to travel that distance. the lawyers i work with notice the depos in a town where the deponent lives.

on another note... if i were roy krunk, i'd be pulling a "zenaida fernandez gonzales" and suing these people for defaming me, insisting i was a "suspect" in this fiasco!! GAWD! hammer

I thank god everyday Rk was persistant in getting LE to check out what he thought looked suspicious. Its a shame they didn't do their job when Rk first reported his findings. The prosecutors are not going to let anyone take the blame for Caylee's death but Casey A., the person totally responsible. This nightmare team Casey has is not going to save her, no one can, she is as guilty as they come. I have no doubts she will at the least spend the rest of her life in prison. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when she is convicted and all her so called, "dreamteam" attorney's have to explain to her what happened. I have no doubt in my mind Casey thinks she will walk. Not going to happen..I take great pleasure in knowing that...as always jmo

[Scampi]

The article at WESH makes no sense based on what is stated in the defense motion:

Ms. Kerley currently resides out of state in Maryville, Tennessee.

Ms. Kerley suffers from a serious medical condition, Hodgkins Lymphoma, which requires extensive treatment in her hometown. Due to the serious illness she is unable to travel to court in order to attend any trial or hearing, and her attendance cannot be procured.

Wherefore the defendant, CMA, respectfully asks this court to grant her Motion to Take a Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony and enter an order for the deposition of Jill Kerkley.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313192/detail.html

Thanks for this link Need. This isn't the first time that WESH has printed misleading information that seems to benefit this desperate defense.

The Prosecution must have the opportunity to depose Kerkley, even then it is up to the defense to prove her deposition is credible and relevant in the murder trial. The Judge will rule on whether any deposition is allowed in as evidence, at trial.

IMO though, the point of all this Kerkley malarkey, is to attempt to taint the potential jury pool at the hearing on Monday or Tuesday, by publicizing this nonsense during the arguments.

We have seen this kind of maneuver time and again, smoke and mirrors is all this defense team has, imo.

Good morning everyone.

[SandyO]

I still have never seen any reasonable guesses expressed as to how the defense can make the leap from Zanny to Kronk. It appears to be the tactic, but just how could that be done?

[Scampi]

I still have never seen any reasonable guesses expressed as to how the defense can make the leap from Zanny to Kronk. It appears to be the tactic, but just how could that be done?


Morning Sandy, you're right, the defense has to provide a nexus between Kronk and ZFG and Caylee Anthony, imo.

[SandyO]

Morning Sandy, you're right, the defense has to provide a nexus between Kronk and ZFG and Caylee Anthony, imo.

Thanks for responding, Scamp. This is where that whole scenario comes to a screeching halt for me.........so I've been waiting for someone to come up with an idea that just MIGHT fly, and no one has. The defense will have to come up with a genius of a proposal to get past that.

[Sun]

Well, as February 1st looms ahead I'm wondering what the defense will have to tell the court about what their proof is that Casey could not have placed Caylee where she was found because she was in jail at the time...

With all of media coverage of Roy Kronk's ex going to testify...I can't help but think the name on February 1st will be Roy Kronk...

Yes, that Feb 1 deadline is rapidly approaching. Do you suppose that the defense will ask for more time? I do.

[SandyO]

Well, as February 1st looms ahead I'm wondering what the defense will have to tell the court about what their proof is that Casey could not have placed Caylee where she was found because she was in jail at the time...

With all of media coverage of Roy Kronk's ex going to testify...I can't help but think the name on February 1st will be Roy Kronk...

Refer to the posts just above, Rapunzel. Do you have any ideas as to how the defense can connect Zanny, Kronk and Caylee? I can imagine they could suggest Kronk "spotted" Caylee while he was working in the neighborhood, but HOW in the world can they connect Zanny and Kronk ---- especially since Zanny is nothing more than a figment of imagination anyway? How do you think they could make that leap with anything half way believable?

[lulusmoon]

I am wondering if that woman is looking for $$$ in some way shape or form?

She (IMO) belongs in the same encampent that JW should be in.


I am very sorry that she is dying from a horrible disease.


I often think of something my dad told me ..... IF a man hits you once, it is HIS fault, if he hits you again ITS YOUR Fault.......


Now after having my niece die due to 3 bullets from an ex husband who exhibited no violence, I have to bury that thought above.

~~~~
MY family went thru this

We as (normal...lol people) feel a need to understand what the hell happened, what went wrong, why did we not see this, why did we not do something.........believe me... our family beat our.... family up, trying to try to understand why Heather died. But the man who she moved in with, (the one who killed her) was the most stable of the male friends in her life...father to 2 of her children.. Heather left this earth leaving 4 children. And we as a family cannot, nor will never-ever understand this tragedy and its far reaching aspects.

We have been warned that the defense will pro-trey Heather as an easy person, they may call her a **** in court, i do not know what will happen.

I can tell you that Heather did a lot in the community, she had a child born with downs and started a support group.

OUR family has been warned that Heather will be referred to as a street walker, the dufense will go as low as they can.

I hate to talk about personal stuff here, there is not one person saying that Heather was not a saint (they have her on the news about starting support programs for parents who have children with disabilities and no support) ..... she was no kc anthony. She loved her children and that may have been the end to her.....

Her Love will live on.

My sister has Heather's McCaw. He just started to live with my sister, as its difficult to house that large of a bird.

So, my sister gives him a piece of fruit, and he hangs his head low, and says "Heather".......my sister tells him we all miss her and love her very much.



Sorry for going off topic.
Such terrible loss, I'm so sorry. May justice soon prevail for Heather and your family.

[Sun]

Refer to the posts just above, Rapunzel. Do you have any ideas as to how the defense can connect Zanny, Kronk and Caylee? I can imagine they could suggest Kronk "spotted" Caylee while he was working in the neighborhood, but HOW in the world can they connect Zanny and Kronk ---- especially since Zanny is nothing more than a figment of imagination anyway? How do you think they could make that leap with anything half way believable?

IMO, Zanny can be connected to ONLY Casey. No one else has ever seen or talked to Zanny. Casey is the only person that seems to have any connection with Zanny.

[Spots™]

Well, as February 1st looms ahead I'm wondering what the defense will have to tell the court about what their proof is that Casey could not have placed Caylee where she was found because she was in jail at the time...

With all of media coverage of Roy Kronk's ex going to testify...I can't help but think the name on February 1st will be Roy Kronk...

They have already hinted at it: We just interpreted the discovery from the prosecution differently than they did.

They will have nothing new.

Nothing.

[BettyC]

Just a FYI - CFNews13 is the first one up with the "live coverage" statement.


LIVE COVERAGE

Watch the latest Casey Anthony hearing LIVE at 1:30 p.m. Monday.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/1/24/will_casey_take_plea_deal_in_check_fraud_case.html


(I'm sure all the usual stations will carry it though.)

[trich]

I am wondering if that woman is looking for $$$ in some way shape or form?

She (IMO) belongs in the same encampent that JW should be in.


I am very sorry that she is dying from a horrible disease.


I often think of something my dad told me ..... IF a man hits you once, it is HIS fault, if he hits you again ITS YOUR Fault.......


Now after having my niece die due to 3 bullets from an ex husband who exhibited no violence, I have to bury that thought above.

~~~~
MY family went thru this

We as (normal...lol people) feel a need to understand what the hell happened, what went wrong, why did we not see this, why did we not do something.........believe me... our family beat our.... family up, trying to try to understand why Heather died. But the man who she moved in with, (the one who killed her) was the most stable of the male friends in her life...father to 2 of her children.. Heather left this earth leaving 4 children. And we as a family cannot, nor will never-ever understand this tragedy and its far reaching aspects.

We have been warned that the defense will pro-trey Heather as an easy person, they may call her a **** in court, i do not know what will happen.

I can tell you that Heather did a lot in the community, she had a child born with downs and started a support group.

OUR family has been warned that Heather will be referred to as a street walker, the dufense will go as low as they can.

I hate to talk about personal stuff here, there is not one person saying that Heather was not a saint (they have her on the news about starting support programs for parents who have children with disabilities and no support) ..... she was no kc anthony. She loved her children and that may have been the end to her.....

Her Love will live on.

My sister has Heather's McCaw. He just started to live with my sister, as its difficult to house that large of a bird.

So, my sister gives him a piece of fruit, and he hangs his head low, and says "Heather".......my sister tells him we all miss her and love her very much.



Sorry for going off topic.

I am so sorry this tragedy has happened to your family and it
sounds like the worst is yet to come as the defense will try to
defame your neice in order to exhonerate her murderer.
I am old and I will never understand why bad things happen
to good people.
I pray for her children.

[Scampi]

I think the desperate defense may try to link Kronk to Caylee by insinuating he watched her playing while on the job as a meter reader. Only problem with that little fairytale, is Kronk was new to the area, iirc, and not working there during the critical time of 6/15.

Also, there has always been rumors that Kronk was friends with someone who lived on Hopespring Drive.

Any connection made to Kronk will be farfetched and tenuous at best, imo.

Explaining away casey's repeated finger pointing at ZFG will be impossible and priceless.

[Ladygator]

I think the desperate defense may try to link Kronk to Caylee by insinuating he watched her playing while on the job as a meter reader. Only problem with that little fairytale, is Kronk was new to the area, iirc, and not working there during the critical time of 6/15.

Also, there has always been rumors that Kronk was friends with someone who lived on Hopespring Drive.

Any connection made to Kronk will be farfetched and tenuous at best, imo.

Explaining away casey's repeated finger pointing at ZFG will be impossible and priceless.

Casey messed up my naming the kidnapper. Describing her, where she lives, where she worked, all kind of details including her family members, lmao.

It will be priceless to see how the defense is going to try and explain all this away while saying SODDI and his name Kronk, or Jesse, TonE, or Amy.

Tommorrows a big day!!!! :thumbsup: We finally get something new!!

[Scampi]

Casey messed up my naming the kidnapper. Describing her, where she lives, where she worked, all kind of details including her family members, lmao.

It will be priceless to see how the defense is going to try and explain all this away while saying SODDI and his name Kronk, or Jesse, TonE, or Amy.

Tommorrows a big day!!!! :thumbsup: We finally get something new!!

Yep Ms Gator, tomorrow is a huge day, tho the 1:30 pm. time is unfortunate cuz the Forrester and Logan clans will have to slosh thru their drama without me........... :biggrin:

[mickeymb35]

Just a FYI - CFNews13 is the first one up with the "live coverage" statement.


LIVE COVERAGE

Watch the latest Casey Anthony hearing LIVE at 1:30 p.m. Monday.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/1/24/will_casey_take_plea_deal_in_check_fraud_case.html


(I'm sure all the usual stations will carry it though.)

Thank you for the reminder. Can't wait for tomorrow.

[read-in]

Casey messed up my naming the kidnapper. Describing her, where she lives, where she worked, all kind of details including her family members, lmao.

It will be priceless to see how the defense is going to try and explain all this away while saying SODDI and his name Kronk, or Jesse, TonE, or Amy.

Tommorrows a big day!!!! :thumbsup: We finally get something new!!

Yup!!, that was casey's story, and she is sticking to it.
they will never be able to connect the dots, simply because there is nothing to connect.

This defense team, just keeps sinking lower and lower...

[MissouriGMom]

Thank you for the reminder. Can't wait for tomorrow.

Looks like I'm having lunch in my office tomorrow with the door closed, of course.

[read-in]

Or will the defense just say they don't know WHO did it...just that Casey could not have done it because she was in jail at the time...by disputing the Entomology reports with their own experts...maybe that is their proof positive???

Added...and all this stuff about Kronk is just a diversion...

Hi Rapunzel,
at this time, I'am not sure that the defense have any expert witness's to dispute the state. jmo

[*PuffDragon*]

I'd love to know what her lawyers had to say to her to convince her to go in front of the judge and change her plea. It couldn't have been easy. Did they say, "Don't worry, it's just a formality"? Did they tell her they'd tried negotiating with the prosecution to try to get a deal, and if they did, did they explain why they turned it down? Did they say what they expect to gain by pleading guilty? Does anybody think she understands any of what they're trying to do?

IMO I don't think she'll have any problem standing in front of the judge and lying. She can answer from her lawyers' script, and she can do it convincingly, {even though what she's thinking will be completely different}. "Miss Anthony, are you guilty of stealing from your friend?" "Yes sir. {but I did it for a very good reason}" "Do you realize that this was wrong of you?" "Yes sir. {Of course not, it wasn't wrong at all.}" "Are you sorry you stole this money?" "Yes sir. {No, I'm not sorry at all. I'm only sorry there wasn't more of it. If I had a chance I'd do it again.}

She'll say what she knows he wants to hear, assuming the lawyers have convinced her this is something she has to do and have prepped her sufficiently. It might get interesting if the judge asks her a question that she hasn't been prepped to answer, or that gives her the idea that the questioning isn't going as easily as her lawyers said, and she has to ad lib. Yes, that could be revealing...........

[SandyO]

Or will the defense just say they don't know WHO did it...just that Casey could not have done it because she was in jail at the time...by disputing the Entomology reports with their own experts...maybe that is their proof positive???

Added...and all this stuff about Kronk is just a diversion...

There! Somebody finally said it! I am wondering if all the Kronk stuff is simply a diversion, too. Just a red herring designed to distract us (and everyone) from some other plan they have in mind. The Kronk stuff, including the ex-wives, is so ridiculous that I can't believe it's serious.

[Lynx]

Yeah, I thought about that...but they could still say they don't know WHO but it couldn't have been Casey because she was in jail and at trial just try to trip up or get the State's Entomologist to say that the science is not exact???...I just keep thinking that the defense really doesn't have to prove anything...just dispute what the State has...or they may have one by then or they may have one we don't know about???...after all they have not been exactly forthcoming with reciprocal discovery...Sorry, just thinking/posting out loud here...l

You bring about some interesting points IMO.

What we have seen so far is what Casey has told LE. No telling how she has connected the dots for Baez and Company. Still being all lies IMO.

I have often wondered what the defense has that has made them not release at least some of their discovery to the state.

[read-in]

Yeah, I thought about that...but they could still say they don't know WHO but it couldn't have been Casey because she was in jail and at trial just try to trip up or get the State's Entomologist to say that the science is not exact???...I just keep thinking that the defense really doesn't have to prove anything...just dispute what the State has...or they may have one by then or they may have one we don't know about???...after all they have not been exactly forthcoming with reciprocal discovery...Sorry, just thinking/posting out loud here...l

ITA,
imo the defense will try and poke as many holes as possible with any and all evidence the state has. However, It's the 31 days, and the 911 calls, that I feel will ultimately will bring her down. Oh, all the lies wont help either.

[Sun]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/os-casey-anthony-explain-monday-20100124,0,5753219.story

Casey Anthony fraud case: Lawyers aren't talking, but something may happen Monday
By Sarah Lundy, Orlando Sentinel
9:39 a.m. EST, January 24, 2010

[Steely Dan]

The February 1 deadline is going to be as big a day in this trial as any. If the defense cannot come up with the witness to support their claim that "KC could not have done it because she was in jail", then their case is sunk.

Strickand has given them every opportunity, every chance, every loophole he can to help them along. While frustrating, I believe he is doing the right thing.

My impression is that they have to go with Kronk. All of this nonsense of getting him into the court records as a "potential suspect" is their avenue to satisfy the court deadline. If they can get Kronk listed "officially" as a suspect, then they can meet the deadline.

If not? ...[insert thermometer here]...she's cooked.

[BettyC]

There! Somebody finally said it! I am wondering if all the Kronk stuff is simply a diversion, too. Just a red herring designed to distract us (and everyone) from some other plan they have in mind. The Kronk stuff, including the ex-wives, is so ridiculous that I can't believe it's serious.


I agree with you Sandy. It definitely is a diversion IMO. That's why I don't spend much time thinking about it or discussing it.

I don't know what other plan they have in mind, but I'm sure it will be just as ridiculous.

They have nothing.

[Sun]

The February 1 deadline is going to be as big a day in this trial as any. If the defense cannot come up with the witness to support their claim that "KC could not have done it because she was in jail", then their case is sunk.

Strickand has given them every opportunity, every chance, every loophole he can to help them along. While frustrating, I believe he is doing the right thing.

My impression is that they have to go with Kronk. All of this nonsense of getting him into the court records as a "potential suspect" is their avenue to satisfy the court deadline. If they can get Kronk listed "officially" as a suspect, then they can meet the deadline.

If not? ...[insert thermometer here]...she's cooked.

I'd like to re-read the Judge's ruling, but can't find a link to the PDF.

[MissouriGMom]

The February 1 deadline is going to be as big a day in this trial as any. If the defense cannot come up with the witness to support their claim that "KC could not have done it because she was in jail", then their case is sunk.

Strickand has given them every opportunity, every chance, every loophole he can to help them along. While frustrating, I believe he is doing the right thing.

My impression is that they have to go with Kronk. All of this nonsense of getting him into the court records as a "potential suspect" is their avenue to satisfy the court deadline. If they can get Kronk listed "officially" as a suspect, then they can meet the deadline.

If not? ...[insert thermometer here]...she's cooked.

She's done, alright. Reasonable doubt = none moo

[oswald]

This is BS. I hope that if they really do let her testify that the prosecution gets to bring up her record. :sneaky:

This is a big LOL moment - Kerley says "the more and more I think about it, the more I think he's involved'

Okay, I say 'the more and more I think about it, I should have won the lottery'

She says about the duct tape - no police record, nothing - just her word - a criminals word - so because it so happens the A's were using the EXACT duct tape found on Caylees remains, that George or Cindy or Lee or anyone in the A's camp can have something to do with it

It's ludicrus

Thats about how serious she will be taken! The defense has nothing, because Casey is a L-I-A-R thats why they are doing this

[oswald]

She's done, alright. Reasonable doubt = none moo

I think it was the hinkymeter, I don't normally agree with the site but the questioning to Kerley about Kronk cracked me up

'Has Mr. Kronk ever been mistaken for a 23 yr old Puerto Rico woman?'

'Has Mr. Kronk ever been called Zanny, or a nanny in the past 3 years?'

LOL

So I guess the nanny didn't take Caylee? Or will Casey say the nanny and Kronk were working together - you know out to get her - for, lets see - Casey had no money, no property, no drugs, a POS car, nothing - so what were they out to get her for????

[MissouriGMom]

This is a big LOL moment - Kerley says "the more and more I think about it, the more I think he's involved'

Okay, I say 'the more and more I think about it, I should have won the lottery'

She says about the duct tape - no police record, nothing - just her word - a criminals word - so because it so happens the A's were using the EXACT duct tape found on Caylees remains, that George or Cindy or Lee or anyone in the A's camp can have something to do with it

It's ludicrus

Thats about how serious she will be taken! The defense has nothing, because Casey is a L-I-A-R thats why they are doing this

In most cases that I've followed, I've worried that there might not be a conviction. In this case, there's not a worry in my mind. She will be found guilty. There just isn't any defense that makes any sense at all.

moo

[oswald]

Just a FYI - CFNews13 is the first one up with the "live coverage" statement.


LIVE COVERAGE

Watch the latest Casey Anthony hearing LIVE at 1:30 p.m. Monday.

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2010/1/24/will_casey_take_plea_deal_in_check_fraud_case.html

(I'm sure all the usual stations will carry it though.)

guess I'm taping the soap! LOL (gotta see what Adam put in the will for Annie - I'm only hoping the writers aren't so clueless!)

So this is for both the check fraud AND the murder trial? Or are their two days of trial???

Thanks!

[oswald]

Not only that but a 23 yr old Puerto Rico woman who is a 10!!!
I mean Kronk ain't no 10!!!...sorry...

LOL! Heck Casey has STILL not exonerated Zenaida that is suing her! I guess she can't because the Kronk carp will be laughed out of the media, court room and legal community - so she has to fall back on someone - cause it ain't gonna be her!

[puzzler]

Good morning, all!

It still cracks me up that the defense team said on tv that there was just as much circumstantial evidence against Kronk as there was against Casey.

Who do they think they are kidding? I guess they think the whole world is stupid. GMAB.

[Ladygator]

I think it was the hinkymeter, I don't normally agree with the site but the questioning to Kerley about Kronk cracked me up

'Has Mr. Kronk ever been mistaken for a 23 yr old Puerto Rico woman?'

'Has Mr. Kronk ever been called Zanny, or a nanny in the past 3 years?'

LOL

So I guess the nanny didn't take Caylee? Or will Casey say the nanny and Kronk were working together - you know out to get her - for, lets see - Casey had no money, no property, no drugs, a POS car, nothing - so what were they out to get her for????

That was a great read! :laugh:

[Steely Dan]

Good morning, all!

It still cracks me up that the defense team said on tv that there was just as much circumstantial evidence against Kronk as there was against Casey.

Who do they think they are kidding? I guess they think the whole world is stupid. GMAB.

Good morning Puzzler -

Everyone who has followed this case let out a collective howl when she said that.

But...

To the average Joe/Joan who has not followed this case, they may pause and reflect on that statement. It will never be admitted into a court room but too many people hold what attorneys say as "fact", when it is not evidence at all.

Just one...that's all they need...just one.

[Scampi]

Good morning Puzzler -

Everyone who has followed this case let out a collective howl when she said that.

But...

To the average Joe/Joan who has not followed this case, they may pause and reflect on that statement. It will never be admitted into a court room but too many people hold what attorneys say as "fact", when it is not evidence at all.

Just one...that's all they need...just one.


I think when Mr. Nejame said that they better be careful in their accusations of Kronk, because they could ricochet on someone else he was referring to the fact that both cindy and george could be said to have tons of circumstantial evidence against them, also. Other then the odious creature, both parents were the last to see Caylee according to their own words and both had direct access to the rare duct tape.

Yep, lyon better watch the accusations.

[oswald]

Good morning Puzzler -

Everyone who has followed this case let out a collective howl when she said that.

But...

To the average Joe/Joan who has not followed this case, they may pause and reflect on that statement. It will never be admitted into a court room but too many people hold what attorneys say as "fact", when it is not evidence at all.

Just one...that's all they need...just one.

I think people are smarter than what the defense says - when the State lays out their facts - and then the defense - you gotta say WHAT? The big problem - how does the defense explain away the first 31 days, and then all the evidence that is connected to the A's home? There is no way to explain it - so when the defense introduces the invsai-nanny who babysat out of the goodness of her heart for 2 years - took Caylee and when the defense tries to lay out that invisa-nanny Zanny and Kronk were partners in crime - for what? There was no ransom, there was nothing the A's had that was so valuable or Casey for that matter - what they kidnapped Caylee for.....nothing? Just to do it?

[puzzler]

Good morning Puzzler -

Everyone who has followed this case let out a collective howl when she said that.

But...

To the average Joe/Joan who has not followed this case, they may pause and reflect on that statement. It will never be admitted into a court room but too many people hold what attorneys say as "fact", when it is not evidence at all.

Just one...that's all they need...just one.

Yeah, they just need one for a mistrial. So, shows you what they care about, because I seriously doubt any of them would stick around for a second trial. JMO

[puzzler]

I think people are smarter than what the defense says - when the State lays out their facts - and then the defense - you gotta say WHAT? The big problem - how does the defense explain away the first 31 days, and then all the evidence that is connected to the A's home? There is no way to explain it - so when the defense introduces the invsai-nanny who babysat out of the goodness of her heart for 2 years - took Caylee and when the defense tries to lay out that invisa-nanny Zanny and Kronk were partners in crime - for what? There was no ransom, there was nothing the A's had that was so valuable or Casey for that matter - what they kidnapped Caylee for.....nothing? Just to do it?

I doubt the DEFENSE is going to lay out the invisinanny story. I don't know what they are going to say in response to it. Maybe they are going to try to say Kronk told Casey to say that. Yeah, that'll work.:rolleyes:

[Pruddennce]

Good morning, all!

It still cracks me up that the defense team said on tv that there was just as much circumstantial evidence against Kronk as there was against Casey.

Who do they think they are kidding? I guess they think the whole world is stupid. GMAB.

yes....THEY DO....

soooooooooo......Kronk broke into the anthony home (oh, or he had a key, which is what Casey told her parents about ZFG...): he stole the blanket, the hamper and the duct tape....then he killed Caylee and placed her in Casey's trunk....then he took her out at some point and placed her in the woods...

where did Kronk kidnapp Caylee from? according to Casey, she left her with the NANNY at Sawgrass...audio and written...and said the same thing to family services...except that statement to family services, she reverted back to the original lie: SHE HAD PAYSTUBS TO PROVE SHE WORKED AT UNIVERSAL: although she told LE SHE LIED about that....

the defense has to put their client on the stand to withdraw her written and oral statements....after all, its the only OFFICIAL story told by her to LE....nothing else is on the record...

IMO, the court is not going to entertain the defense in their preposterous accusation....


IMO

best regards,
Pru

*waiting on maggot evidence....*

[adair]

Good morning Puzzler -

Everyone who has followed this case let out a collective howl when she said that.

But...

To the average Joe/Joan who has not followed this case, they may pause and reflect on that statement. It will never be admitted into a court room but too many people hold what attorneys say as "fact", when it is not evidence at all.

Just one...that's all they need...just one.


I know I have asked this before...but what type of juror do they want? How are they planning on getting around the 31 days, hot body contest, ditching of the death car, no pix, no contact info for Zanny. I can hear the pros asking the club owners, did kc show you a pix of Zanny? Hell, her doing her own investigation and she doesn't even have a picture to pass around?
Back that up with GA saying that kc really loved photography and still not a single pix of caylee with her nanny ?????

Who does the defense want on that jury????

[Bingo]

I was watching Dateline or 48 Hours (one of em) last night and they had a story about the Binnion (spelling?) case in Las Vegas. A man and woman were on trial for murdering him. The defense said he overdosed because he was a long time heroin addict. I don't know if they really did or not, but.........

During the trial, "world renowned" Dr. Baden testified that the victim had been killed using a method from the 1800's called "burking". Something about suffocating a person while they are intoxicated. The victim had two little red marks on his chest that the doctor said proved the method. The defense couldn't get past the Dr's testimony and both people were convicted.

Anyway.....They appealed and got a new trial. At that trial, Dr. Baden's "expert" testimony was ripped to shreds. He only conceived his opinion from photographs and numerous experts testified that the red marks were a simple skin condition. Both defendants were freed.

Again, I didn't follow the case so I don't have an opinion of the guilt or innocence but what is with Michael Baden and his crazy opinions? So he can just continually take the stand and make up odd theories?

If he takes the stand in Casey's trial and makes up some odd reason why she didn't do it, why can't the state use his testimony in the Binnion case and the Spector case to prove he is less than a "world renowned" expert?

Grrrrrrrrr....it's maddening..

My own opinion. Thanks for listening. Be well.

[oswald]

I doubt the DEFENSE is going to lay out the invisinanny story. I don't know what they are going to say in response to it. Maybe they are going to try to say Kronk told Casey to say that. Yeah, that'll work.:rolleyes:

OMG - that would be hilarious! Seriously - you gotta wonder - how long do you think, if this were ALL true, that Casey would be able to keep it all a secret?

When the state lays out the 31 days - and the texts and action of zero worry, zero anxiousness, that Casey was as normal as she was a year ago (of what normal is to Casey) - then what?

The defense comes back with 'ugly coping'?

The difference with the ugly coping that the defense touts is that the person has a conscious of what they are doing is wrong - they used that one case of the marine wife who was later exonerated - she went out and has a boob job, slept around, etc. She had the traits of a person with a conscious, who was demeaning herself to feel better

So Casey sure didn't seem like she was demeaning herself to feel better - with canoodling with TonE (on tape), her writhing up and down a stripper pole, theiven for her 'best' friend, texting, acting normal

There is no ugly coping

[puzzler]

yes....THEY DO....

soooooooooo......Kronk broke into the anthony home (oh, or he had a key, which is what Casey told her parents about ZFG...): he stole the blanket, the hamper and the duct tape....then he killed Caylee and placed her in Casey's trunk....then he took her out at some point and placed her in the woods...

where did Kronk kidnapp Caylee from? according to Casey, she left her with the NANNY at Sawgrass...audio and written...and said the same thing to family services...except that statement to family services, she reverted back to the original lie: SHE HAD PAYSTUBS TO PROVE SHE WORKED AT UNIVERSAL: although she told LE SHE LIED about that....

the defense has to put their client on the stand to withdraw her written and oral statements....after all, its the only OFFICIAL story told by her to LE....nothing else is on the record...

IMO, the court is not going to entertain the defense in their preposterous accusation....


IMO

best regards,
Pru

*waiting on maggot evidence....*

Pru, I just love the way you lay it all out so clearly!:wub:

Don't you know the defense wishes Casey and Cindy had been muzzled from day one!

[puzzler]

OMG - that would be hilarious! Seriously - you gotta wonder - how long do you think, if this were ALL true, that Casey would be able to keep it all a secret?

When the state lays out the 31 days - and the texts and action of zero worry, zero anxiousness, that Casey was as normal as she was a year ago (of what normal is to Casey) - then what?

The defense comes back with 'ugly coping'?

The difference with the ugly coping that the defense touts is that the person has a conscious of what they are doing is wrong - they used that one case of the marine wife who was later exonerated - she went out and has a boob job, slept around, etc. She had the traits of a person with a conscious, who was demeaning herself to feel better

So Casey sure didn't seem like she was demeaning herself to feel better - with canoodling with TonE (on tape), her writhing up and down a stripper pole, theiven for her 'best' friend, texting, acting normal

There is no ugly coping

bbm....nope just ugly business as usual for Casey.:sneaky:

[adair]

bbm....nope just ugly business as usual for Casey.:sneaky:

I wondering what she will be wearing tomorrow........:confused:

[puzzler]

I wondering what she will be wearing tomorrow........:confused:

LOL Who knows, but I almost feel sorry for Casey in this one respect.

[adair]

Pru, I just love the way you lay it all out so clearly!:wub:

Don't you know the defense wishes Casey and Cindy had been muzzled from day one!


I bet the defense will try like he77 to get those statements thrown out. I don't see how they can, but I am sure the defense will come up with some weirdo motion...I know an invisi ~ motion. That should do it.

[MissouriGMom]

LOL Who knows, but I almost feel sorry for Casey in this one respect.

You do? I think she'll be much better at her ugly coping with an ugly outfit on!

[witchywoman]

I wondering what she will be wearing tomorrow........:confused:

shackles? chains?:thumbsup:jmo

[puzzler]

You do? I think she'll be much better at her ugly coping with an ugly outfit on!

Note I said almost:laugh:

[puzzler]

I bet the defense will try like he77 to get those statements thrown out. I don't see how they can, but I am sure the defense will come up with some weirdo motion...I know an invisi ~ motion. That should do it.

Well, this is why I love the fact that at the bond hearing, Baez reiterated over and over with Yuri Melich that Casey could have asked for a lawyer at any time and stopped talking. He made it CLEAR that she was talking freely. OOPS Baez.:w00t:

[MissouriGMom]

Note I said almost:laugh:

Duly noted! :w00t:

[Scampi]

Well, this is why I love the fact that at the bond hearing, Baez reiterated over and over with Yuri Melich that Casey could have asked for a lawyer at any time and stopped talking. He made it CLEAR that she was talking freely. OOPS Baez.:w00t:



He sure did, so helpful to his case...... :lol:

I think team anthony will be sporting the ever popular seafoam green again.

[oswald]

You do? I think she'll be much better at her ugly coping with an ugly outfit on!

It all depends on what Lyons is wearing, if she's there (I shall call her....mini me)

[puzzler]

This is interesting on Macaluso.

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/06-O-14552-1.pdf

[sunstar]

Since I'm not an attorney I may very well be wrong, but I don't believe her written testimony would be considered hearsay. If she writes only about incidents or facts she herself has seen or experienced, it is not hearsay. If she writes about what someone else told her, that would be hearsay. MOO

I'm just curious since I was watching something about the Mark Jensen case last night and there was a letter the (deceased) wife wrote that she feared he was going to kill her...anyways I understood he might get a new trial minus the letter because the high court ruled against admitting such letters. So wouldn't something written by RK's ex-wife be treated the same way? Or would it be a sworn statement? Anyone else know more about this? :confused:

[oswald]

I'm just curious since I was watching something about the Mark Jensen case last night and there was a letter the (deceased) wife wrote that she feared he was going to kill her...anyways I understood he might get a new trial minus the letter because the high court ruled against admitting such letters. So wouldn't something written by RK's ex-wife be treated the same way? Or would it be a sworn statement? Anyone else know more about this? :confused:

I think the difference is that Mark Jensen's wife wrote that letter during the relationship - there was also others who saw what she saw, meaning Mark Jensens attitude and growing disdain for his wife (actions and such)

As for Kronk's wife - there is no one that can corroberate her statements, she has no police report or any assistance from neighbors, friends or family - her own son can't say if it happened or not

Heck I can go make a statement right now to the police - Kronk is satan himself, he has prompted all these deaths in the last year - it's his fault - I can name all kinds of things I think is truth - unverifiable by anyone - but it's my statement - see what I mean?

Not one person has made the same statement about Kronk - if say his ex wife, and his girlfriend made the same statement, and they didn't know each other there might be a little credence to it BUT no one else has said this has happened - if Kronk was this maniac that his ex says, he would have done it to others - or have been violent to others - it wouldn't be an isolated incident and it would NOT be just an EX

An EX has motive to do this - maybe he didn't pay child support, maybe he abandoned her and his kid, maybe he cheated on her - if an EX makes these kinds of statements that no one can verify then it's more than likely and EX out to get the other EX

[BlueTurtle]

puzzler,
WESH reported it too? :ohmy: gulp :bored:
Get out the ear plugs because if she's allowed to testify, I will scream too.
I must remember to buy Nerf balls tomorrow. :smile:

I asm sure that the ex's opinion will not be allowed. It will be objected to by the state. I doubt the testimony will not come in during the trial. I think the defense might be prevented on bringing anything related to it up at trial when questioning Kronk. The was a reward out at the time for Caylee wasn't there? That reward will bring people out to look for her on their own like Kronk. It might have been other garbage sacks he noted in August, but his reasoning was ultimately correct on her placement.

I am pretty sure the state has thoroughly investigated this ex wife and she will find that she has her opinions and sharing them will bring her grief. I am pretty sure the bitter ex scenario will be brought up by the state as a motive for her to speak.

[BettyC]

I'm just curious since I was watching something about the Mark Jensen case last night and there was a letter the (deceased) wife wrote that she feared he was going to kill her...anyways I understood he might get a new trial minus the letter because the high court ruled against admitting such letters. So wouldn't something written by RK's ex-wife be treated the same way? Or would it be a sworn statement? Anyone else know more about this? :confused:

That fact that she feared Jensen was going to kill her and she ended up dead is much different than Kronk's ex-wife's opinion about this case IMO.

The one highlight of that show last night, for me anyway, was when the reporter was talking to the prosecutor. She was telling him what Jensen's parents had to say.

He said he wouldn't give a thought to what they had to say since they are both liars!

I loved it and fast-forwarded in my mind to Linda Drane Burdick saying something similar about the Anthonys.

(I can dream anyway.)

[sunstar]

I think when Mr. Nejame said that they better be careful in their accusations of Kronk, because they could ricochet on someone else he was referring to the fact that both cindy and george could be said to have tons of circumstantial evidence against them, also. Other then the odious creature, both parents were the last to see Caylee according to their own words and both had direct access to the rare duct tape.

Yep, lyon better watch the accusations.

I agree, Scampi. There's a better chance, imo, that the A's were involved in Caylee's demise than RK. After all, from the car to everything found with her remains came from the house and RK didn't have access to any of it. MOO

[sunstar]

I think the difference is that Mark Jensen's wife wrote that letter during the relationship - there was also others who saw what she saw, meaning Mark Jensens attitude and growing disdain for his wife (actions and such)

As for Kronk's wife - there is no one that can corroberate her statements, she has no police report or any assistance from neighbors, friends or family - her own son can't say if it happened or not

Heck I can go make a statement right now to the police - Kronk is satan himself, he has prompted all these deaths in the last year - it's his fault - I can name all kinds of things I think is truth - unverifiable by anyone - but it's my statement - see what I mean?

Not one person has made the same statement about Kronk - if say his ex wife, and his girlfriend made the same statement, and they didn't know each other there might be a little credence to it BUT no one else has said this has happened - if Kronk was this maniac that his ex says, he would have done it to others - or have been violent to others - it wouldn't be an isolated incident and it would NOT be just an EX

An EX has motive to do this - maybe he didn't pay child support, maybe he abandoned her and his kid, maybe he cheated on her - if an EX makes these kinds of statements that no one can verify then it's more than likely and EX out to get the other EX
That's basically what I was thinking and used Jensen as an example that if there's a possibility he could get a new trial without the letter written by his wife, how would something from RK's ex-wife possibly be admissable? As you said, there's no police report about any of her allegations and nothing really to back it up, just what she's saying now for whatever reason. :shrug: MOO

[puzzler]

I read this before and now forgot what the court decided on this...seems something like he was suppose to go to ethics school or something...does anyone remember...and I cannot find the page either...I'll try to find the page with the decision...

So far I can't find a final decision. I found where he asked for Alternate Discipline Program, but can't find if they allowed him to do this or what.

[sunstar]

That fact that she feared Jensen was going to kill her and she ended up dead is much different than Kronk's ex-wife's opinion about this case IMO.

The one highlight of that show last night, for me anyway, was when the reporter was talking to the prosecutor. She was telling him what Jensen's parents had to say.

He said he wouldn't give a thought to what they had to say since they are both liars!

I loved it and fast-forwarded in my mind to Linda Drane Burdick saying something similar about the Anthonys.

(I can dream anyway.)
I caught that part too, and thought of the same thing!! :biggrin: I really wonder too if the state will even have them testify, or if they do, declare them hostile witnesses and limit their answers to "yes" and "no". MOO

[jamom]

snipped for space...
Anyway.....They appealed and got a new trial. At that trial, Dr. Baden's "expert" testimony was ripped to shreds. He only conceived his opinion from photographs and numerous experts testified that the red marks were a simple skin condition. Both defendants were freed.

Again, I didn't follow the case so I don't have an opinion of the guilt or innocence but what is with Michael Baden and his crazy opinions? So he can just continually take the stand and make up odd theories?

If he takes the stand in Casey's trial and makes up some odd reason why she didn't do it, why can't the state use his testimony in the Binnion case and the Spector case to prove he is less than a "world renowned" expert?

Grrrrrrrrr....it's maddening..

My own opinion. Thanks for listening. Be well.

Welcome Bingo, I watched that last night too. I had watched the first trial, but not the second, so missed the shredding of Baden til last night. Would love to have him get on the stand in this case and have him get it again, but I don't think he's on this case and already said some damaging things at the beginning against Casey before his wife got involved. But it sure would be fun!

[BlueTurtle]

Oh, Adair, I cannot even imagine what this has been like for you and your family. I am so sorry.

I don't know what this woman's motivation is, but besides a grudge against Kronk, I would bet money is in the picture. Or maybe just getting her face on national tv a few times. I just do not believe that she really thinks he did this. I am sure he is not a perfect guy, but she sure isn't either. If I am right about her, she should be ashamed of herself.

:mad:



I think the judge will deny it since the "prior bad act" was not in keeping with the details of this case, it is remote in time it occurred (if it did at all) and the motivation of the witness is suspect.

[oswald]

I caught that part too, and thought of the same thing!! :biggrin: I really wonder too if the state will even have them testify, or if they do, declare them hostile witnesses and limit their answers to "yes" and "no". MOO

I think the state might let the defense call the A's to the stand - that way the state can shred the A's on the defenses testimony - show them to be the liars they are - the A's testimony can be heard through depos and audio like the 911 call - the A's would most likely want to get on the stand to refute what they said and the defense can call them - then let the state slam them like they deserve

And it wouldn't have to be a noticeable slam - the state can be very matter of fact - 'you said this today, but you said this to investigators in a depo, this and you said this to the fbi here, etc. - the state will have an easy time discrediting the A's

Should be interesting

[MissouriGMom]

I think the judge will deny it since the "prior bad act" was not in keeping with the details of this case, it is remote in time it occurred (if it did at all) and the motivation of the witness is suspect.


I think you're right. This whole Kronk thing is going nowhere. In fact, I don't think they will put on a defense at all. Just like in the S. Peterson and Entwistle trials, they'll try throw in a few doubts while questioning the States witnesses, and then spew some more garbage out during their closing statement. Won't work. moo

[Spots™]

This is interesting on Macaluso.

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/06-O-14552-1.pdf

Found guilty, sentenced to the CA Alternative Discipline Program.

CAADP (http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/sbc_generic.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1384057108.126435 8892@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccccadejfihjkjjcfngcfkmdffidfng.0&id=23390&cid=13483)

Todd can't keep his finances straight, Jose had financial "irregularities" --- no wonder they're after the money.

ETA: To read more about the cases, type in "Todd Macaluso" in the appropriate boxes at link below:

http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx

[oswald]

I think you're right. This whole Kronk thing is going nowhere. In fact, I don't think they will put on a defense at all. Just like in the S. Peterson and Entwistle trials, they'll try throw in a few doubts while questioning the States witnesses, and then spew some more garbage out during their closing statement. Won't work. moo

You know you could be right - what was the final sentence for Entwistle? Oh yeah we have to remember, like OJ - the Petersons and Entwistles are all looking for the real killers LOL Yeah they are in jail!

But you know what, as I think about it - Lyons and Baez are too full of themselves - Lyons has a record to defend, not Casey but her record - Baez thinks he's better than hispanic sliced bread LOL They will talk just to hear themselves talk

Gerigos was smart, he knew when to shut up, but Gerigos practice suffered for defending Peterson - Entwistles lawyer, he disappeared from the headlines quickly

[puzzler]

Found guilty, sentenced to the CA Alternative Discipline Program.

CAADP (http://calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/sbc_generic.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1384057108.126435 8892@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccccadejfihjkjjcfngcfkmdffidfng.0&id=23390&cid=13483)

Todd can't keep his finances straight, Jose had financial "irregularities" --- no wonder they're after the money.

Thanks, Spots. I was getting cross-eyed looking for that!

The defense seems to have lots of problems with money. I think taking this case may just wind up being another financial blunder for them all.
:tonguewag:

[sunstar]

I think the state might let the defense call the A's to the stand - that way the state can shred the A's on the defenses testimony - show them to be the liars they are - the A's testimony can be heard through depos and audio like the 911 call - the A's would most likely want to get on the stand to refute what they said and the defense can call them - then let the state slam them like they deserve

And it wouldn't have to be a noticeable slam - the state can be very matter of fact - 'you said this today, but you said this to investigators in a depo, this and you said this to the fbi here, etc. - the state will have an easy time discrediting the A's

Should be interesting

I too think it might be better to let the defense call them, let them ramble on during direct, and then the state nicely hit them with inconsistencies on cross-examination. Either way it will be very interesting! MOO

[MissouriGMom]

You know you could be right - what was the final sentence for Entwistle? Oh yeah we have to remember, like OJ - the Petersons and Entwistles are all looking for the real killers LOL Yeah they are in jail!

But you know what, as I think about it - Lyons and Baez are too full of themselves - Lyons has a record to defend, not Casey but her record - Baez thinks he's better than hispanic sliced bread LOL They will talk just to hear themselves talk

Gerigos was smart, he knew when to shut up, but Gerigos practice suffered for defending Peterson - Entwistles lawyer, he disappeared from the headlines quickly

Entwistle got LWOP. Gee, what am I thinking? The smart thing to do would be to not put on a defense and just shut up. I forgot who we are dealing with. :smile:

[~tj~]

Hi everyone!!!! :seeya:

I have a question....

Remember when Casey was told that they found Caylee, and it was in a nurses office I think? And they filmed Casey.... did they ever release that video?

[CatToy]

So far I can't find a final decision. I found where he asked for Alternate Discipline Program, but can't find if they allowed him to do this or what.

You know I was just reading back on the Raynella Dossett Leath case (a real doozy, very upsetting case) and in her case, she had a prior conviction where she had chased a man down with a gun and got 6 yrs of probation, it was called something special, it's like you've been convicted of a crime but technically you are not a felon or a criminal..
(state of TN) AND then she had that expunged. 6 mos later her husband 2nd one was DEAD.
That evidence of her PBA was NOT Allowed in at either trial.
And I fully disagree with that...
Well, in this case, with Casey I do not think that she should be allowed any special treatment, she should be convicted as a felon and that should stand. I am anxious to see what Judge S does in her case.

If Baden, finds his way anywhere near this case, there will be a mis trial. LKB, and her husband are nothing more than ambulance chasers, they ruin trials and reputations of the victims. Baden thinks he is special because he worked on the JFK case, and will use any situation to tell you so. Makes me truly, ILL.

I don't know if I can sit through another trial listening to LKB butcher medical terminology.
FGS!